ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Legal Aid Funding

Sharon Hodgson: Whether he plans to make further changes in the level of funding for legal aid; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Grayling: Legal aid is a fundamental part of our justice system, but resources are not limitless. When reform began, we had one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world, at about £2 billion a year. Even after our reforms are complete, our legal aid system will still be one of the most generous, at about £1.5 billion a year. The Transforming Legal Aid programme that is currently being implemented is designed to save an extra £215 million per year. There are no current plans for further changes to funding levels beyond this programme, but the financial pressure to balance the books remains.

Sharon Hodgson: Research by Rights of Women has revealed that six out of 10 women who suffered domestic violence and were then refused legal aid took no further action through the courts, and many, as a result, ended up staying in violent and abusive relationships. Will the Lord Chancellor look again at the barriers to access to justice that his legislation has created?

Chris Grayling: There are two issues involved. Clearly, domestic violence is a criminal offence and it should be dealt with properly by the police. Although we made a number of difficult changes in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, one of the groups we protected was women who needed to go to court after an incident of domestic violence, and that is the way it should be.

James Gray: I would be grateful if the Secretary of State updated the House on what representations about current levels of legal aid he has received from the Bar Council and other organisations representing barristers.

Chris Grayling: Not surprisingly, the Bar Council has argued very strongly for the status quo on legal aid. We have worked with it closely over the past 12 months, particularly in the work done by Sir Bill Jeffrey and, most recently, Lord Justice Leveson on how we can improve the process to reduce work load, at a time when we face big financial pressures, and create a system that is more efficient.

Margaret Ritchie: Does the Secretary of State not agree that reductions in funding for this service could prevent those within the sphere of family law from accessing justice, thus reducing the ability to challenge unreasonableness?

Chris Grayling: As a Government, we have had to take some difficult decisions about legal aid. It is certainly the case that there is less legal aid money available for family law cases than there was. I am afraid that is a natural consequence of the financial challenges that we have faced. It is interesting that no party in this House has pledged to reverse these changes.

John Leech: What has been the cost in wasted court time, particularly in family proceedings where people have not been properly prepared for their proceedings, as a result of cuts to legal aid?

Chris Grayling: So far, there has been an increase in the number of litigants in person. Of course, we have always had litigants in person in our courts. We continue to monitor the situation closely. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), is working hard to look at additional ways of smoothing the processes that people have available to represent themselves. None the less, progress in our courts has so far continued pretty well.

Andy Slaughter: The Secretary of State’s third attempt to introduce a new contract for criminal legal aid is now stalled in the High Court and looks dead. Will he join the shadow Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), in burying it? Will he work with the legal profession to devise a model that does not put hundreds of high street solicitors’ firms out of business and lead to more miscarriages of justice? Or is this just like prisons, probation and the Courts Service—another of the policy car crashes he is leaving to an incoming Labour Government to sort out?

Chris Grayling: The one thing we can always guarantee at these sessions is to hear a load of nonsense from the hon. Gentleman. I have listened carefully to Labour Members’ arguments over the past few months. They oppose when it is politically convenient to do so, but they have absolutely no idea what they would do in our place—and that is why the electorate are not going to give them the chance.

Rebalancing the Outer Estates Project (Nottingham North)

Graham Allen: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the Rebalancing the Outer Estates Foundation in Nottingham North constituency on reoffending rates among young people not in education, employment or training.

Andrew Selous: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to improving education, skills, training
	and employment for his constituents. He has a long record of working in early intervention projects—an area that I am personally very committed to.

Graham Allen: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	Does the Minister agree with the old cliché that the best crime prevention measure is a job for young people? Will he commend the work of the rebalancing foundation in Nottingham North and visit it in order to see a number of the schemes that we have undertaken, including building—or hoping to build—a special college for 14 to 17-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training?

Andrew Selous: The evidence backs up what the hon. Gentleman says: only 32% of adults said they were in paid employment in the four weeks prior to custody, so the hon. Gentleman’s question is along the right lines. The evidence also tells us that more than a third of young people who go to prison in Nottingham reoffend. That is why we are putting education and skills at the heart of our transforming youth custody programme. The Government have also given £100,000 from the local enterprise partnership to the project in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

Pre-charge Bail

Barry Sheerman: What recent estimate he has made of the number of people on bail without charge.

Michael Penning: I am lucky enough to be the police Minister in the Home Office as well as a Justice Minister, and this question falls under both portfolios. We do not hold that data centrally, but we are now gathering them because of the review of pre-charge bail announced by the Home Secretary.

Barry Sheerman: Some of the answers I am getting from the Department do not include National Crime Agency figures. That is an omission. Does the Minister agree that for someone to be arrested and bailed without charge for months and months, such that their careers and lives are destroyed, goes against all the principles of British justice? Will he look at what Operation Pallial and the National Crime Agency are up to and at whether they are leaking private information to the media?

Michael Penning: If there is any evidence of leaking to the media, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will pass it to me in due course. I agree that we need to make sure that bail is used correctly, and that is exactly why the Home Secretary announced a consultation, which is ongoing. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will give evidence to it so that we can get it right. People should not be on bail for any longer than they need to be.

Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. Friend advise people who are in that position that bail is voluntary, so they do not have to accept it? If they do not accept bail, the police will either have to charge or release them.

Michael Penning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but someone who is arrested and offered bail when an investigation is ongoing faces a really difficult decision. We have indicated that the period should be no more than 28 days, and the consultation is looking at whether that is viable. The period may need to be longer in exceptional circumstances, particularly when the police are looking at encrypted hard drives, but at the end of the day it is for the individual and the police to decide.

Nuisance Phone Calls

David Nuttall: What discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues and the claims management regulator on tackling nuisance phone calls.

Simon Hughes: Tackling nuisance calls is a priority for the coalition and I welcome my hon. Friend’s interest in the subject. We are working closely with colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to reduce the irritation and distress they cause. Our Department’s claims management regulator has worked with industry and consumer groups as part of the nuisance calls taskforce. It published some recommendations on 8 December, which we believe will help reduce unwanted calls and texts, and we are actively considering which we can soonest implement.

David Nuttall: One of those recommendations is that the Government should introduce new legislation to hold to account directors of companies that blatantly flout the law on making nuisance telephone calls. What progress has the Minister made on implementing that particular recommendation?

Simon Hughes: There are three specific issues on the table. The first is what we did in December, which allows for new, tough financial penalties on companies—by which I mean companies as a whole—that break the rules. The second is the proposal that we have consulted on and are about to respond to, which would lower the threshold at which enforcement action can be taken and produce a fine of up to £500,000, which should be a deterrent. The issue of holding individual company members to account is more complex and will not be the first of the two things we do.

Michael Crockart: The claims management regulator is often held up as the model for how to limit the number of nuisance calls due to the way in which the number of payment protection insurance call numbers has been reduced. However, recent discussions I have had with the Association of British Insurers indicate that it may not be working quite as planned. Will the Minister commit to a meeting as soon as possible to review whether the process is working as well as possible?

Simon Hughes: I recognise my hon. Friend’s assiduous work on this issue and I am very happy to pick up on the issue that the claims management regulation unit may not be as effective in practice as we believe it is in theory. We are determined to protect the public. Nuisance phone calls and nuisance texts, particularly to the vulnerable, are unacceptable. They must be dealt with and we will do that with my hon. Friend’s help.

HMP Altcourse

Steve Rotheram: What steps he is taking to improve security and prisoner and staff safety at HMP Altcourse.

Andrew Selous: The National Offender Management Service is working very closely with the contractor in a number of areas to address those extremely important issues.

Steve Rotheram: I visited the jail myself recently and there have been some welcome improvements since the action plan, but, given the damning report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons, can the Minister assure my constituents that the prison is not only safe, but fit for purpose?

Andrew Selous: The Government take this issue extremely seriously, and the Secretary of State was in that prison on Friday. We are taking five actions. First, a new director has been appointed. He was formerly director of Her Majesty’s Prison Rye Hill, and he took up his position on 8 December. There is a new head of security and a new security intelligence manager, and new search and security systems are in place. Two full lock-down searches of the prison were conducted in November and December, and improvements have been made in the operation of the basic regime, which will help with the issues that the hon. Gentleman quite properly raises.

Stephen Mosley: As well as taking prisoners from Merseyside, HMP Altcourse takes prisoners from Cheshire and north Wales. What will be the impact of the new super-prison at Wrexham on prisoner capacity in Cheshire, north Wales and Merseyside? [Official Report, 25 February 2015, Vol. 593, c. 3-4MC.]

Andrew Selous: We need more adult male capacity so we are taking the right course of action by building the new prison in north Wales. There are currently no prisons in north Wales, and the new prison will enable us to house all Welsh prisoners within Wales, which we have not been able to do before. We will keep prisoners as close to their home areas as far as possible.

Youth Justice System

Bridget Phillipson: What plans he has for the future of the youth justice system.

Andrew Selous: The Government are committed to preventing offending by young people. We are working to place education at the heart of youth custody, and will open the first secure college pathfinder in 2017. We have announced the commencement of our stocktake of youth offending teams, to give us a better understanding of how local youth justice services are delivered and to help ensure that we provide the best support possible to young offenders and their communities.

Bridget Phillipson: Will the Minister acknowledge the serious concerns that have been raised about the Government’s secure college proposals, and act on the advice of the chair of the Youth Justice Board and find alternative provision for girls and the youngest offenders?

Andrew Selous: As the hon. Lady knows, we will not be placing girls and young people under the age of 15 in the secure college when it starts, and those issues will be subject to a vote of both Houses of Parliament. At the moment we spend an average of £100,000 a year to keep a young person in custody, and we have a reoffending rate of 68%. We need to try something better, and putting education and skills at the heart of youth justice so that we turn young people into productive members of their community is the right way to go.

Guy Opperman: What plans does the Ministry of Justice have for alternative custody in the form of a secure residential drug treatment centre for young persons and adults? That could be piloted as an alternative for the future so that we can have better treatment in the longer term.

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend is right to mention drugs in prisons as that issue is of great concern to the Ministry of Justice, not least because of new psychoactive substances that are getting into prisons. Our existing prisons have drug treatment programmes, and we are considering how we can continually improve and make that work more effective.

Meg Munn: The Minister will know that many young people who become involved in offending have themselves been victims of crime—perhaps crimes that they have not disclosed such as sexual abuse. When did he last meet the children’s Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Timpson), to discuss that issue and consider how we can ensure that those young people, as victims, get the help that they deserve?

Andrew Selous: I reassure the hon. Lady that I am working closely with the children’s Minister and I have met him on a number of occasions, most recently last week. We are working closely together to address the issues that she has quite properly raised.

Dan Jarvis: Not a single independent expert thinks that the future of our youth justice system should involve wasting £85 million on a flawed plan for a secure college, and Labour Members will not go ahead with that proposal. Will the Minister guarantee that the secure college contract will not be signed before the general election, so that we avoid saddling the taxpayer with a huge bill for an expensive, unnecessary prison?

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman is not totally correct because the Youth Justice Board is a strong proponent of the secure college. Let me say what I said to the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) a moment ago: it is not as if what we are doing at the moment is a roaring success. We spend enormous amounts of public money to get very poor results, and it is right to look at education and skills. The matter has been considered in Parliament, as he knows, and we are on plan to sign contracts later this month.

Reoffending

Justin Tomlinson: What steps he is taking to break the cycle of reoffending.

Chris Grayling: I am pleased to inform the House that we have now completed our work and opened up the market for breaking the cycle of reoffending to a diverse range of new rehabilitation providers to get the best out of the public, private and voluntary sectors, and that we have commenced the provisions of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014.

Justin Tomlinson: What role does the Lord Chancellor see for mentoring in addressing reoffending for those who serve short sentences?

Chris Grayling: Mentoring is a crucial part of the future of our work to break the cycle of reoffending. I have absolutely no doubt that the ability of those who have been through the system themselves and turned their lives around, and who currently work within the voluntary sector, to play a role in changing the lives of those who are still in the criminal justice system is enormous. One thing that excites me is that, with the presence in the rehabilitation arena of a number of our leading charities working hand in hand with the Government and the private sector to deliver better rehabilitation, I am convinced we will see those mentoring skills brought to bear on the problem.

David Hanson: We have heard a lot about conflict of interest this week. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he believes it is a conflict of interest that a private sector company can be paid £35,000 per place to keep somebody in prison in one region, and that the same private sector contractor can be paid £1,500 to keep someone out of prison? Is that not a conflict of interest?

Chris Grayling: We get a lot of nonsense from Opposition Members. I want a joined-up process, in which we work with people in prison, help them to prepare for release, and work with them when they have left prison. No organisation that works for the public sector in this arena chooses who it gets in its prisons or rehabilitation arena. It is right and proper that that responsibility lies with the public sector. I think a joined-up approach is the right way forward.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the Secretary of State agree that work in prison should lead to prisoners gaining skills that improve their employability, leading to reduced reoffending rates on release? Will he indicate to the House the number of prisoners partaking in work activity this year compared with 2010-11?

Chris Grayling: The number of hours worked in prisons has increased dramatically in the past four years—the latest figures show 14 million hours—and we are seeking to increase that number all the time. Last week, I was at HMP Coldingley for the launch of a new partnership between the Ministry of Defence and the Prison Service, whereby prisoners will produce items such as sandbags for use by our armed forces. I hope
	that that work will continue, grow and develop. The more we can get prisoners in our prisons working, the more likely they are to get a job when they leave.

Keith Vaz: As we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), drug addiction in the criminal justice system is a huge problem. There were 4,500 seizures of drugs in prisons last year. What further steps will be taken to deal with mandatory help in prisons and help for prisoners when they leave?

Chris Grayling: There are two parts to that equation. Although there has been considerable success over the years in tackling the problem of conventional drugs in prisons, the problem now is the arrival of new psychoactive substances that are not detected through the normal means. That has posed an additional challenge to our prison system, and is a significant reason behind the increase in the amount of violence—serious violence—in prisons in the past 12 months. We are taking additional measures to try to tackle that, including tougher security measures and tougher penalties within prisons, and the training of dogs to sniff out that new generation of substances.
	Of course, alongside that, proper work must be done to try to tackle addiction. With the through-the-gate system we have created and are creating, it is important that we see a flow-through from work done in our prisons to work done after our prisons. I remember being told by prison staff how frustrated they were that they had no guarantee that the rehab being done in prisons would continue when prisoners left. That will now change.

Philip Davies: The cycle of reoffending is not helped by the number of people who are released on bail rather than remanded in custody. As the Daily Mail reports today, two rapes a week and one unlawful killing are committed by people on bail. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) does not seem to care about the number of rapes committed by people on bail and is laughing about it. A previous parliamentary question I asked revealed that 20% of all burglaries are committed by people out on bail. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that more persistent offenders are remanded in custody and fewer persistent offenders are out on bail to commit more crimes?

Chris Grayling: Decisions on individual bail cases lie with the courts, which are independent of Government, but I never want the courts to be in a position where they do not have a place to send those whom they wish to put behind bars. I hope our courts will exercise extreme care in deciding whether to put somebody behind bars or to let them out on bail. As we go into the election in May, there are 3,000 more adult male prison places than there were in 2010.

William McCrea: Will the Justice Secretary outline some of the additional educational opportunities that he believes would assist in preventing people from falling back into a life of crime?

Chris Grayling: We continue to work to expand education in our prisons, and I am pleased that this year we expect a significant increase in the number of prisoner
	qualifications. Great work is done by our education professionals in our prisons. We will look to expand and develop that as far as logistically possible.

Sadiq Khan: The Justice Secretary was warned about the risks of the appointment of Paul McDowell as chief inspector of probation, but he arrogantly ignored them. Despite the clear conflict of interest, he defended his decision at the Dispatch Box when I raised the matter. He has shown a clear error of judgment. At a time when an independent inspector is needed the most, we do not have one. Will he confirm that the taxpayer will now be left with a further bill of £70,000 for his error of judgment, with the former chief inspector free to join one of the private companies that are now running probation?

Chris Grayling: I have to say that the right hon. Gentleman’s comments are an insult to a fine public servant, who has taken a brave decision this week. I am not of the view that someone should be denied the opportunity to apply for a job because of the possibility that in the future their wife’s company might win contracts and she might be promoted. I regard Paul McDowell as a fine public servant who has done a good job for this country. I hope he will return to a new post somewhere else supporting our public sector in the future, because he deserves it. He has done a very good job.

Local Access to Justice

Julian Smith: What steps he has taken to ensure local access to the justice system.

Michael Penning: We keep the courts estate under review to ensure it meets operational needs and our aim to improve effective delivery of the justice system across our country.

Julian Smith: Skipton magistrates court is key to providing local access to the justice system for one of the most rural parts of our country. Will the Minister confirm that he will do everything he can to ensure that that court is kept busy and stays open?

Michael Penning: As the Police Minister, I am sure some of my colleagues in the police force will be doing exactly that. I do not think there has been a better advocate for a constituency magistrates court than my hon. Friend. Every time he opens his mouth in conversation with me or my colleagues in the Tea Room, he talks to me about Skipton magistrates court. I would do exactly the same if I was in his position.

Ian Lucas: When I had a meeting about my local magistrates court merger with the Courts Service, the court clerk in charge of the decision was based in Llanelli. Does the Minister regard that as local justice?

Michael Penning: I honestly think that when we look at the courts estate we need to make sure it is fit for purpose around the country. Where someone is based is immaterial. What we need to do is ensure we make the right decisions.

Alan Beith: Will my right hon. Friend take a critical look at the proposal on its way to his desk that there should be a single local justice area stretching from Berwick to Sunderland, which could lead to cases being transferred for administrative convenience to courts 70 miles away at great cost to witnesses and families?

Michael Penning: I will, naturally, look at any submission that comes across my desk. I am sure the Minister responsible will look at that very carefully when it arrives.

Andrew Love: How many courts, closed since May 2010, remain on the estate undisposed of? What is the cost to the taxpayer of this policy?

Michael Penning: I do not have the exact figures in front of me. I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme (Women Prisoners)

Valerie Vaz: What assessment he has made of the effect on women in prisons of the implementation of the incentives and earned privileges scheme.

Simon Hughes: We have some excellent women’s prisons led by excellent governors. The impact of coalition policies on women are always considered carefully by Ministers. I am committed to ensuring that that is done for women in prison, for which I have a particular responsibility. There was an equality impact assessment for the incentives and earned privileges policy, which came into effect in November 2013. Since then, we have subsequently continued to listen to prison staff, women in prison and organisations, and we make changes to the framework whenever appropriate.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Minister for his response, but clothes, books and stationery are the very necessities of life. He will know about the independent monitoring board’s report into New Hall prison and the effect on the female estate. Will he at least review the effect on female prisoners of the one-parcel-of-clothing rule?

Simon Hughes: The incentives and earned privileges policy framework is an important reform to ensure that privileges in prison are no longer automatic. It is a reform that we brought in—it was not the case under the last Labour Government—and I hope Labour now supports the principle that people should earn privileges. On women’s clothing, however, female prisoners are not required to wear prison clothing; unlike male prisoners, they do not have to earn the right to wear their own clothing. There has always been a restriction on the number of items of clothing they can have in their cells, but I have insisted that there be no restriction on the amount of underwear they are permitted at all times when in custody.

Assaults on Prison Officers

Fiona Mactaggart: How many prison officers have been assaulted during the course of their work in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Selous: There were 3,470 assaults on staff in the year to 30 September 2014, and I can assure the hon. Lady that I get angry and upset at every single one. There is growing evidence that the increased smuggling of new synthetic drugs into prisons is a major factor in levels of prison violence, and we have already announced a series of measures to crack down on it. We will ensure that governors have the powers and support they need to tackle the problem.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is the Minister as shocked as I am at the number of serious assaults in male prisons? The number has nearly doubled from 241 in September 2009 to 418 last September. Will he look at the record when the Conservatives were last in charge of our prisons, when they cut prison officer numbers and then had to undertake an emergency recruitment programme in 1996?

Andrew Selous: The hon. Lady is right that these are extremely serious issues, but there is a growing body of evidence that the increase in the number of serious assaults is linked to the increase in new psychoactive substances in prisons. I hear that from governors and prison officers in every prison I visit. We have taken a series of measures, announced only a couple of days ago by the Secretary of State, to give governors more powers to crack down on the problem. We are trying to educate families and friends of prisoners not to smuggle these substances into prisons. If we can reduce the amount of those drugs in prisons, we will reduce levels of violence. All those things, along with the protocol with the police and Crown Prosecution Service and the increased use of body-worn cameras, will help to tackle this serious issue.

Jenny Chapman: Can we just remind ourselves what we mean by “a serious assault” on a prison officer? It can mean serious cuts, fractures, concussion, loss of consciousness and damage to internal organs. If these were any other public servants—nurses, for instances—there would rightly be a public outcry. These are public servants going to work every day too often now in fear of their lives. The Minister has a duty of care towards them. What will he do now—it is not just about drugs—to protect staff in our prisons?

Andrew Selous: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that prison officers are front-line public servants who keep us safe, and I have told her how seriously I take this issue. I read the reports on a daily basis, and I can assure her that they affect me as much as they do her and everyone else in the House. We are taking action in three areas: a wider range of punishments to crack down on the use of new psychoactive substances; the new protocol—it has never happened before—between the CPS and police forces to ensure that prisoners who attack staff or other prisoners spend longer behind bars; and an increased use of body-worn cameras. All that will help.

Victims of Crime

Stella Creasy: What steps he is taking to support victims of crime.

Michael Penning: We published “Our Commitment to Victims” in September 2014. In addition, I chair the victims panel, and we will bring forward a victims law. On Thursday, I launched TrackMyCrime, which, for the first time, will enable victims to track their crime as it passes through the criminal justice system. Across the House, we should congratulate Avon and Somerset constabulary on piloting and bringing forward this initiative.

Stella Creasy: In November, the Minister wrote to me to say that this Government had decided to be “silent” on the rights of murder victims abroad, so that they did not have to do anything to help the families secure justice. The Minister will try to talk about the new directives for victims, but why have the Government been silent about the rights of the British taxpayer, Tyrell Matthews-Burton, and yet have spoken up for others?

Michael Penning: I have met the hon. Lady, and I know that she is passionate—and quite rightly so—in speaking up for her constituents and victims. As she knows, it is about the definition within the law as it was, and it is no good attacking this Government, because it was exactly the same for the 13 years under the previous Government. We are making the changes.

Maria Miller: Increasing numbers of victims are victims of crime committed online. Many have experienced disturbing and threatening behaviour. What steps are the Government taking to support victims of that type of crime?

Michael Penning: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the campaigning work she has done on this subject. The type of crime she describes is just as illegal if it is done online as it would be if it was done face to face. We are trying to support everybody, but there are difficulties, not least in getting people to come forward. TrackMyCrime will help. If a crime has been perpetrated in a domestic situation, for instance, people can get the e-mails at work; it is their choice where they get the information from.

Julie Hilling: Further to that point, what discussion has the Minister had with colleagues in the Home Office about how victims of cybercrime and other fraud are being treated by Action Fraud, when they are not even told whether their case is being investigated, let alone prosecuted?

Michael Penning: I am a Minister in the Home Office, as I am sure you are aware, Mr Speaker, as well as the Ministry of Justice, so I am very close to this issue. Through TrackMyCrime people will know exactly where in the criminal justice system their case lies. Across the House, we should congratulate Avon and Somerset on bringing forward the initiative, which is now in 43 police authorities around the country.

Mr Speaker: The Minister of State is not omnipotent; he is nearly ubiquitous—a point of which we have been reminded several times today. We are aware of the sheer scale and extent of his responsibilities.

Crispin Blunt: We have already legislated to increase the duty on sentencers to consider compensation from offenders to their victims. We have taken powers to increase the amount that can be attached against benefits in future, so that the sums are actually paid to victims. We are increasing work in prisons so that prisoners can earn resources that can be paid to victims. Will the Minister tell us what progress is being made on delivering compensation from offenders to victims of crime in reality?

Michael Penning: I am proud to say that we have just announced that there will be £40 million extra each year on top of the £50 million compensation already paid. A lot of that money comes from the perpetrators of crimes. We hope to get more money from offenders, and we are working to ensure that that happens.

Boundary Dispute Cases

Charlie Elphicke: What steps his Department is taking to promote mediation and the use of independent experts to reduce the number of boundary dispute cases coming before the courts.

Simon Hughes: The coalition is committed to reducing the number of property boundary disputes that come before the courts, as we are to reducing pressure on the court system more widely. I pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend has done, particularly his Property Boundaries (Resolution of Disputes) Bill. We published a scoping study on 15 January, and I hope that will provide a basis for agreeing a way forward that will lead to greater use of mediation and expert determination.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that when neighbour property boundary disputes reach the courts, the legal costs often rack up, making it harder to settle the case? That is why I have been making the case for compulsory fast-track mediation, as in the party wall legislation, to make it easier to proceed and to avoid this problem.

Simon Hughes: I am absolutely persuaded that costs mount as people go to court, and I want to see the pressures and costs on our court system, as well as on individuals, reduced. We have taken steps over the past year to increase the use of mediation in the family courts, which has been successful. That should be applied to other disputes, including over property boundaries, and experts should also be used, but whether it is right to go down a mandatory route is the difficult question. I will work with my hon. Friend to see if we can reach agreement on how to move forward.

Kate Green: rose—

Debbie Abrahams: rose—

Mr Speaker: I would have called the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), but she “boinged” too late. I call Kate Green.

Magistrates

Kate Green: What steps his Department is taking to encourage people to become magistrates and to train new magistrates.

Michael Penning: I will just “boing” again, Mr Speaker. The role of a magistrate is already a sought-after role in our communities and competition for vacancies is very strong.

Kate Green: I declare an interest as a life member of the Magistrates’ Association, which has expressed concern to me about the new provisions of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014, which came into force this week in relation to the new activity requirements. The association says that it has been inundated with queries from magistrates about these new provisions. Will the Minister tell us what detailed training has been given to magistrates?

Michael Penning: There is a substantial and comprehensive training programme, which is under the overall supervision of the Judicial College. I will write to the hon. Lady giving a full and detailed answer—or, rather, the Minister responsible will.

Philip Hollobone: Why do magistrates have to retire at 70? We are losing years of experience from willing volunteers. I think that the regulations should be scrapped, so that hundreds more people could continue to serve in our magistrates courts.

Michael Penning: I understand exactly where my hon. Friend is coming from. That sort of experience is important. However, we must also bring young people into the magistrates service, because otherwise there would be no throughput in the system.

Human Trafficking

Michael Connarty: How many people have been convicted of human trafficking offences in the last four years.

Chris Grayling: That question does not sit within the responsibilities of the Ministry of Justice; it is a question for the Home Office. However, I can inform the hon. Gentleman that between 2010 and 2013—the latest year for which figures are available in relation to human trafficking offences on an all-offences basis—the number of convictions increased by nearly 66%. The Government are committed to stamping out this abhorrent crime, building on the United Kingdom’s strong track record of supporting victims and fighting the perpetrators.

Michael Connarty: I am sorry to learn that the Secretary of State for Justice thinks that convictions for trafficking are not really his responsibility. I should have thought that those at the Ministry of Justice were the very people to deal with them. In Scotland, the Minister for Justice takes responsibility for trafficking convictions there. My criticism of the new Modern Slavery Bill is that all the laws for which it provides are exactly the same as those that have operated up to this moment.
	I do not know what “66%” means: 66% of nothing is nothing. We want to know why the Ministry of Justice did not argue for the new laws that Lord Judge and Peter Carter recommended to the Joint Committee that was set up to look into the issue.

Chris Grayling: In response to the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I can tell him that it is a simple matter of fact in Government that this issue is looked after by the Home Office. As for his second point, I do not believe that any past Government have done more than the present Government to tackle human trafficking. Work is being done across Government and across the public sector to deal with a crime that we all believe is abhorrent, and that we all want to see stamped out.

Meg Hillier: The Secretary of State says that the issue of human trafficking is not his responsibility, but the issue of convictions is, and one of the key challenges is gathering evidence. In my constituency, I often meet victims many years after the trafficking offences have been committed. The Home Office may be responsible for some of these matters, but what is the right hon. Gentleman’s Department doing to improve the evidential chain and ensure that the evidence is there in court to secure convictions?

Chris Grayling: The securing of evidence to bring prosecutions to court is a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, but our Department will always do all that it can to facilitate their work. I expect our reforms of the court system to improve the process in both those organisations, but we depend on the very good work done by our police service and the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that people are prosecuted.

Young Prisoners

Julian Huppert: How many young people were in prison (a) on 28 January 2015 and (b) in April 2010.

Andrew Selous: In April 2010, 2,149 people under 18 were in custody. The latest published figures available for the youth custody population relate to November 2014, when 1,055 people under 18 were in custody. That is a decrease of 51%.

Julian Huppert: That is a substantial decrease and it is very welcome, particularly at a time when crime is falling. Much of it has been due to the excellent work of the Youth Justice Board, which should be congratulated. Does the Minister agree that we should take similar steps to try to reduce the number of women in prison, which is what has been argued for by the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes)?

Andrew Selous: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of praise for the Youth Justice Board. That organisation, along with colleagues in the youth offending teams, has done excellent work in reducing the number of entrants to youth custody. However, decisions about
	which people should be sent to prison are decisions for the courts, and women’s prisons are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Suicides (Remand Prisoners)

Bob Russell: How many prisoners on remand committed suicide in the last five years; and how many such people were in safe cells.

Andrew Selous: Every death in prison custody is a tragedy. The Ministry of Justice records the number of self-inflicted deaths and does not make any attribution of intent; that is determined at inquests. In the last five years, there have been 108 self-inflicted deaths in prison custody of prisoners on remand. Safer cells are designed to have fewer obvious ligature points than conventional cells, but no cell can be entirely safe and free of ligature points. Three of those deaths were recorded as having taken place in safer cells.

Bob Russell: I am grateful for that answer, but if the Prison Service had taken any notice of my Adjournment debate in 2000 on safer cells in prison, it would know that the quick arithmetic is that several hundred lives would have been saved. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Prison Service will get its act together and take the positive measures necessary for safe cells, which would minimise deaths in prison?

Andrew Selous: When I get back to my office I shall make it my business to read the hon. Gentleman’s Adjournment debate from 2000, as I recognise that he has a serious interest in this subject. Let me tell him the action that we are taking to deal with this issue. First, we accept, and act on, the many recommendations of the prisons and probation ombudsman. I also point out to the hon. Gentleman that the increase in deaths has occurred in a range of prisons in different circumstances, so there is no obvious pattern. We are putting additional resources and support into safer custody work and in particular into improving the consistency of the application of the case management system for prisoners identified as at risk of self-harm or suicide, and there is also additional support at regional level to share good practice.

John McDonnell: This morning the Minister very kindly provided to the Justice Committee for publication the latest figures on suicides in prisons for 2011, 2012 and 2013 and nine months of last year. They show a total of 256 suicides in our prisons during that period. At the same time the Minister provided us with the figures on the ratio of the number of prisoners to staff. It has gone up from 3.8 to 4.9 in the same period. Does he not see a correlation between fewer staff dealing with more prisoners and less safe prisons?

Andrew Selous: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished member of the Justice Committee, takes a serious and ongoing interest in this. As I said to the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), the rise in self-inflicted deaths has taken place in contracted prisons, which have not been subject to reductions, as well as in public sector prisons and prisons that have
	completed the benchmarking process, so there is no obvious connection between the two. I would just repeat what I have said: we look at every single death; we learn the lessons from the coroner’s report and the prison and probation ombudsman; we have put in extra resource both at prison level and at regional level to try to reduce the number of deaths; and we are absolutely as concerned about this as the hon. Gentleman rightly is.

Family Law Mediation Services

Debbie Abrahams: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of mediation services provided for family law cases.

Simon Hughes: Mediation between separating couples helps reduce the stress on children and families and the pressure on the courts system, and saves money for taxpayers. Last year nearly two-thirds of couples attending a single mediation session involving children reached full agreement at that session, and seven out of every 10 couples choosing mediation ultimately reached an agreement. That is why the coalition Government have funded a free mediation information meeting and a free first session provided that one party is legally aided.

Debbie Abrahams: My constituent David Burke has described the mediation process for family law cases as shambolic, and his experience is not unique. This is working against enabling parental responsibility, as the legislation originally intended. What are the Government doing to address these failings?

Simon Hughes: I have to tell the hon. Lady that the message here is not one of failure but one of increasing success. The number of people attending mediation assessment meetings has gone up in the last three quarters, and there is no report of these being shambolic. I will willingly meet the hon. Lady and her constituent on the subject, but I am clear that her party is committing no extra money for legal aid, so it will not be any different or greatly reformed under Labour.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, Karl McCartney.

Mobile Phone Use (Prisons)

Karl McCartney: What steps the Government are taking to stop the use of mobile phones in prisons.

Andrew Selous: We take this problem very seriously, stopping many mobile phones getting into prisons and finding those that do get in. We search prisoners, staff and visitors, we use X-ray and body scanners, CCTV and closed visits, and we deploy mobile phone blockers. We have also amended the Serious Crime Bill to enable the National Offender Management Service to instruct mobile phone companies to disconnect any phone that is found to be used within a prison. This Government have also increased the punishment for possessing an unauthorised mobile phone in prison.

Karl McCartney: I thank the Minister for that answer. Ministry of Justice figures reveal that there have been 7,451 seizures of mobile phones and SIM cards in 2013 across the UK. Is there a difference in detection rates between establishments run by Her Majesty’s Prison Service and those run by private contractors, and if so, what can that be put down to?

Andrew Selous: I am not aware of any difference in the rates of detection between different prisons, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this issue. We want to protect victims from being terrorised by prisoners from within prisons, and we also want to stop prisoners carrying on organising crimes from within prisons. That is why we take this issue so seriously. We are using blockers and we are now disconnecting. We will continue to focus on the matter.

Topical Questions

Nicholas Dakin: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Chris Grayling: I am pleased to inform the House that we have this week taken further significant steps in implementing our transforming rehabilitation reforms. This will reduce reoffending, which has been much too high for much too long. On 1 February, we brought into force the remaining uncommenced provisions of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014. This means that, for the first time, virtually all offenders will be given a proper chance of rehabilitation. The Act extends statutory supervision and support to the 45,000 offenders a year who are released from prison sentences of less than 12 months, the majority of whom currently receive no support at all after their custodial sentence ends. They simply walk the streets with a few pounds in their pockets. This group of offenders has the highest reoffending rate of almost any group; almost 60% of those released from short prison sentences went on to reoffend within 12 months. The changes mean that any offender whose offence was committed on or after 1 February and who has been sentenced to a custodial term of more than one day will now receive at least 12 months’ supervision after release. That is a big step forward.

Nicholas Dakin: To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: to lose one chief inspector could be considered a misfortune, but to lose two looks somewhat careless. Will the Secretary of State tell the House precisely when he became aware of Mr McDowell’s links to Sodexo and whether that was before Mr McDowell was appointed to the role? Will he also tell us why he chose not to share that information with the Justice Select Committee when it was going through the pre-appointment scrutiny hearings?

Chris Grayling: Let us be clear that the recruitment of Mr McDowell followed Cabinet Office guidelines exactly, as I have said to the House and to the Select Committee before. I do not believe that someone should be denied the chance to apply for a job based on hypotheticals of what may happen. I would commend Mr McDowell for recognising the issue when it arose, when his wife was promoted in November, and for taking what I think was
	a sensible decision. I think he is an honourable and upstanding public servant, and I wish him all the very best.

Nick de Bois: I should like to take this opportunity to extend my deepest sympathy to the family of Shaquan Sammy-Plummer, who was tragically and senselessly stabbed to death on Friday night in the borough of Enfield. The Secretary of State knows that there are many complex reasons surrounding the causes of knife crime, but he will also know that the House has approved a change in the law proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and me which would mean that the possession of a knife for a second time would carry a guaranteed jail sentence. Will he update me on the progress of that legislation? To kill someone with a knife, you first have to possess a knife.

Michael Penning: I am sure that the whole House will want to send its commiserations to the family of my hon. Friend’s constituent who has lost his life. Naturally, the police investigation is ongoing so I cannot comment on that individual case, but we are awaiting Royal Assent to the Bill to which he alluded, and as soon as that comes through we will be able to take things forward.

Sadiq Khan: We already know how little the Justice Secretary thinks of our international human rights obligations, given that he wants to repeal the British Human Rights Act and walk away from the European convention on human rights. What is the Ministry of Justice’s motivation for signing a £5.9 million contract with a country whose justice system is widely condemned for the use of torture—which is what a sentence of 1,000 lashes amounts to—and of execution by beheading?

Chris Grayling: We have not signed a contract. Under this Government and under the last one, our Departments have worked with other Governments around the world to try to encourage improvements and best practice in their justice systems. I believe that that is the right thing to do. We should try to influence countries to move their justice systems in the right direction, and we will continue to do that.

Sadiq Khan: I look forward to hearing about the best practice for beheading.
	We have a prisons crisis here, with the chief inspector of prisons being sacked. The chief inspector of the probation service has resigned. We have judges criticising Ministry of Justice policies on a daily basis, we have had disks containing sensitive information lost by the MOJ, and the legal profession is boycotting the summit to mark the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, at which the Secretary of State is the keynote speaker. Why does he think that those who work in and use the justice system think so little of him?

Chris Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman cannot even gets his facts right; I am not the keynote speaker at the global law summit. It is being run independently with a number of key people from around the world, including the wife of a former Labour Prime Minister.
	The reality is that a leading figure in the justice world said to me last week, “Do you know, I may not agree with your policies, but at least you’ve got some; the other party hasn’t got any.”

Richard Graham: Last week, a much loved young man of 19, Zac Evans, was killed in a horrific attack by a man with a machete while trying to separate two women in a scuffle. The trial of the killer is due to be held in Bristol, but it would be better, especially for Zac’s family and, I believe, for all of Gloucester, for this local outrage to have justice delivered at the Crown court in Gloucester. Will my right hon. Friend support the letter I shall be writing to the Lord Chief Justice seeking precisely that solution?

Chris Grayling: We all condemn such a horrendous act and extend our best wishes and condolences to the victim’s family. The allocation of cases is and will always be a matter for the judiciary, and there are sometimes good reasons for their picking the locations that they do, as it is in the interests of justice to do so. I know the Lord Chief Justice well. He is deeply sensitive to the issues that victims face, and I am sure he will look thoughtfully at the letter that my hon. Friend sends him.

John Robertson: Lord Lexden, the official historian of the Conservative party, has attacked the Lord Chancellor, saying:
	“Britain must have a Lord Chancellor who puts his duty to the law above party politics.”
	Why did he say that?

Chris Grayling: I believe it is the job of the Lord Chancellor not only to uphold the law but to change it where it is necessary to do so. The reforms of judicial review are necessary, measured and proportionate. They are reforms that were argued for by Ministers in the previous Government, but of course they never did anything about it.

Henry Smith: Last week, I was privileged to attend a ceremony at the Crawley Band of Brothers, where men mentor former young offenders to help them turn their lives around. What further steps can the Department take to encourage such voluntary groups to help the rehabilitation of offenders?

Andrew Selous: I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for what voluntary groups such as a Band of Brothers can do, alongside the work of our public sector probation professionals, to reduce reoffending further, which is what our reforms are all about. No doubt he will be pleased to know that 19 of the 21 areas have a voluntary group such as the one he mentioned in their tier 1 providers, and a Band of Brothers is part of MTCnovo’s supply chain, delivering rehabilitation services in London.

Bill Esterson: I do not think the Justice Secretary answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), so I will give him another go. Did the Justice Secretary
	know before the appointment of the chief inspector of probation that his wife was the managing director of Sodexo Justice Services? Why did the Justice Committee not have that information for its pre-appointment hearing?

Chris Grayling: I will say it once again. The hon. Gentleman asked about the Justice Committee. Of course my Department has been aware of the situation, but the reality is that we have followed, to the letter, the Cabinet Office guidelines. I do not believe we should disqualify somebody from applying for a job because of something that may, hypothetically, happen.

Charlie Elphicke: My constituents are concerned about the claims culture that we saw in past times, which has been putting people off volunteering, and the risk of erroneous prosecutions. What progress have the Government made on dealing with those issues?

Chris Grayling: I am very pleased that we have now passed the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill through both Houses of Parliament. Interestingly, the Labour party has been saying all along that the Bill is meaningless, but in the House of Lords Labour tried to remove a chunk of it because of worries about the impact on employees. The Opposition cannot have it both ways: either the Bill does something, in which case they should ignore it, or it does not do something, in which case they might have a point. The reality is that the Bill makes a real difference: it will protect volunteers and small employers against spurious claims in the workplace. Once again, the Opposition say one thing in this place and do something completely different.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I recently wrote to the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), regarding the daughter of a constituent of mine who was murdered by her former partner in the 1990s. My constituent subsequently sought care of her daughter’s child, but, disgracefully, the law enabled her killer to obstruct the adoption proceedings. The Minister was unable to explain how this injustice was allowed to happen, and it appears that the legal situation has simply not changed in this regard. I urge him to take a proper look at this case, take whatever steps necessary to ensure it cannot ever happen again, and give my constituents some answers.

Simon Hughes: I am very sympathetic to the issue that the hon. Lady raises. The Secretary of State and I met people arguing that the law should be changed so that there is a read-across from criminal convictions to the application in family law of rights in relation to children. The matter is actively on our agenda, and I am happy to accept representations and to meet the hon. Lady and her constituent.

Maria Miller: My constituents are shocked by the recent appalling revelations about child abuse. What steps are the Government taking to toughen up sentencing for those who are found guilty of these appalling crimes against children?

Michael Penning: I am sure the whole House wants to see people who perpetrate those sorts of crimes go through
	the criminal justice system and spend the right amount of time in prison. That is why we have toughened up this area and why the indeterminate sentences are there, and the European Court upheld the decision on that this morning.

Jeremy Corbyn: Did the Secretary of State know whether Mr McDowell had a family relationship with Sodexo before he referred the case to the Justice Committee?

Chris Grayling: I think I have answered that question already. I said yes, we knew that Mr McDowell had that relationship, and yes, we followed the Cabinet Office guidelines to the letter. At the time, his wife did not hold a position in the rehabilitation arena. She has now moved to a position where she will be the head of that part of the business. Mr McDowell has decided to step to one side, which is a creditable decision to take. As I said earlier, I do not believe that somebody should be disqualified from applying for a job because of a hypothetical. I know that the Opposition do not agree, and they seem to be out to get Mr McDowell. I can only reiterate that he is a fine public servant. I regret the fact that he has had to leave and I hope that he has a good career in the future.

Mark Menzies: Kirkham prison in my constituency has developed a solid reputation for retraining inmates to prepare them for life on the outside. Will the Minister update me on what programmes are available to assist them to re-enter the world of work and end the days of offending?

Andrew Selous: I pay tribute to the staff at Kirkham prison for the good work they do in getting inmates into work. My hon. Friend is right that this is a really important area; we do take it seriously. I am pleased to tell him that we have increased the number of hours in prison from 10.6 million to 14.2 million and that our transforming rehabilitation reforms will ensure that prisoners are prepared for the world of work as they leave. I am pleased to say that increasing numbers of employers are doing really well at taking on ex-offenders.

Nick Smith: The average number of days taken to remove a foreign national offender has increased year on year from 143 days in 2010 to 187 days in 2013. Why is the Government’s record so poor?

Andrew Selous: I think the hon. Gentleman should tread carefully, given that the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons doubled while his party was in power and has come down while we have been in power. On a serious note, I share his frustration. I want to see removals speeded up. I can tell him that we now have the first prisoners taken back on the prisoner transfer agreement with both Nigeria and Albania, but he is right that there is further progress to be made.

Tessa Munt: Is the rehabilitation work with prisoners with a drug problem robust enough now to mean that the Secretary of State’s Department has finally halted the practice of retoxification of prisoners in anticipation of their release?

Chris Grayling: I think we still have work to do in that respect. In particular, we have a problem with the new generation of psychoactive substances that do not show up in tests. I remember a conversation with a group of staff in one of our prisons working with offenders with an addiction. They said that the problem was that when those offenders leave prison nothing happens. There is no requirement on them to carry on treatment. They disappear off into the community and get back on drugs. Under our rehabilitation reforms, there is now a power to require those people to take part in rehabilitation for a 12-month period after they have left.

Mr Speaker: We are extremely grateful to the Secretary of State. Extreme pithiness is now required.

Ian Lavery: Does the Secretary of State share my grave concerns at the recently published report by the chief inspector of prisons on HMP Northumberland? Does he agree that if the Government do not do something, one of these serious incidents will turn into a tragedy that we all regret?

Chris Grayling: I have visited HMP Northumberland. It has been going through a period of transition, but the model of a working prison that will substantially extend the amount of work done by prisoners in that jail must be the way forward. I look forward to seeing improved inspection reports in future and a dramatic increase in the amount of work done and in prisoners’ employability when they leave.

Nicola Blackwood: In the Select Committee on Home Affairs last week, we heard the anti-female genital mutilation campaigner Leyla Hussein describe the death threats and intimidation she and her family, including her 12-year-old daughter, have to endure as the price for her brave stand against this appalling form of child abuse. It is essential that the thousands of hidden victims and witnesses to FGM see how seriously the Government take it and know that if they come forward they will be protected. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that victims and witnesses to FGM are fully protected under the law?

Michael Penning: I am very proud that this Government have changed the law to protect not only the people who have had FGM done to them but those who might have it perpetrated on them. They should be protected in every way possible so that they have the confidence to come forward. That is what we are working on at the moment, and it is an important piece of work. A lot of this nasty abuse is online, and that is just as illegal as if those threats were made face to face.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but demand has exceeded supply, as is usually the case.

Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Yes, we will come to points of order, which are always a considerable jollity.

Points of Order

Madeleine Moon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order relates to question 16 on today’s Order Paper and implies no criticism at all of the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell). The question refers to prisoners who have “committed” suicide. Prisoners no longer commit suicide; nor does anyone else since the Suicide Act 1961. The word “commit” suggests a criminal offence and is a pejorative term that offends many of those who have lost family and friends to suicide. The Table Office could be instructed to be vigilant about the use of such terms. Perhaps the appropriate term could have been “died by their own hand” or “took their own life”, but the question certainly should not have used the word “commit”, which relates to a criminal offence.

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for kindly giving me advance notice of it. She makes a good point on which I confess I had not previously reflected. The phrase used in the question, and I appreciate what she said about the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), is not disorderly, but I will ask the Table Office to consider whether its practice should be changed for precisely the good reason she has just given to the House. I hope that that is helpful.

Fiona Mactaggart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier in this question session, the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) heard me scoff as he spoke. I scoffed when he referred to the Daily Mail as the source of his research, not because I do not care about the issue of rape, which is an issue I raised on the BBC in a “Newsnight” programme when the hon. Gentleman was eight years old.

Mr Speaker: I think that the point of order raised by the hon. Lady stands on its own. She has made her point with force and alacrity and the reason for her scoff is well understood.

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance in uncharted territory. We have not had a fixed-term Parliament before and visits to constituencies by Ministers become much more sensitive in this clear run-up to an election. I heard at 5.38 pm last Thursday that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions would visit Kirklees college in the heart of my constituency at 11 am the next day. If that was an official visit, it would have been a courtesy to have told me that he was coming so that I could perhaps have been there to welcome him. I understand that Colne Valley and Dewsbury are highly sensitive marginal seats nearby, but this was an official visit, presumably paid for by the taxpayer, in the run-up to an election that we know will be on 7 May. What is the status of such visits and should there not be the usual courtesy of telling a Member when a Minister is visiting their patch?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He asks what is the status of such an arrangement. The short answer is that it is a convention;
	it is not a requirement of parliamentary procedure or of our Standing Orders. That said, I think it is very much to be preferred that the convention should be observed, as it is for the most part by Members on both sides of the House. Notification, by definition, must take place before the visit, but in order to comply with the spirit of the convention, it seems to me reasonable that Members should have adequate notice of, in particular, official visits, so that if they wish to be present, they have the chance to be so. I do not in any way diminish the significance of the hon. Gentleman’s point or of what I just said when I note that the honouring of that arrangement has frequently been as much in the breach as in the observance, and that, I think, is regrettable. It is not a point applied to one side rather than the other.
	I know that in the past, long before I was elected to the Chair, visits were made to institutions within my own constituency of which I did not have what I regarded as anything like adequate notice in order to be able to decide whether I wished to be present. I appeal to colleagues to be considerate and solicitous in these matters, because a colleague who does not observe the convention is not only doing the wrong thing, but wholly disabling himself or herself from subsequently complaining if the convention is not honoured when his or her own constituency is affected. I think that deals with the matter.

Alan Beith: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When the Justice Committee, as was mentioned earlier, held an appointment hearing for the chief inspector of probation, some information was not given to it, although the Cabinet guidelines did not require that to be done. Subsequently, the position changed quite significantly when the wife of Paul McDowell was promoted to a much more senior post in an organisation which had in the meantime obtained contracts for probation. I think it right to say by way of a point of order not only that in my view has Mr McDowell correctly resigned, but that I endorse what the Lord Chancellor has said about his integrity, I repeat what the Committee said about his suitability for the job and his abilities, and I dissociate myself from any attack on his integrity from any part of the House today.

Mr Speaker: What the right hon. Gentleman has said is interesting, both for its content and for the vantage point from which he speaks. Members will make their own assessment. I thank him for what he said, and we will leave it there.

Richard Graham: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When, earlier, I raised the horrific killing of my constituent, Zac Evans, the entire Opposition Front-Bench team, with one honourable exception, were chuntering and laughing—indeed, one of them continues to chunter now. May I ask if it would be in order for one of their representatives to confirm that there was no intention of disrespect in relation to an horrific act, widely decried in my constituency?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says and understand the extreme seriousness with which he treats that extremely serious occurrence. I hope he will understand if I say that I do not think we want to get into choreographed responses on matters of this kind. I think it should be taken as read that such a
	matter is extremely serious, and I do not myself imagine for one moment that any member of the Opposition Front Bench intended any discourtesy. The hon. Gentleman has underlined one important point: Members should be sensitive to the mood of the House and the nature of the matter being raised. It was and is a very serious matter and I thank the hon. Gentleman both for his question and for raising it in the seemly fashion he has just done.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) is chuntering from a sedentary position, although I note that on this occasion he has not said what he ordinarily says, which is, “It’s a disgrace!” and that itself is a notable change—

Andy Slaughter: It is.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman says it is. If there are no further points of order, we come now to the ten-minute rule motion.

Living Wage (Reporting)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Heidi Alexander: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require listed companies to report annually on the percentage of their staff paid below a Living Wage; and for connected purposes.
	I am introducing the Bill because we need to be more open about the problem of low pay in our economy. Many of the UK’s largest, most well known companies pay wages which people cannot afford to live on. Millions of shop workers, care assistants, cleaners and catering staff are paid so little that the only way they can make ends meet is with the help of tax credits and the payment of in-work benefits. Put simply, the state is supplementing the incomes of the low-paid while subsidising the wage bill of their employers. I believe that companies that can afford to pay the living wage have a responsibility to do so, and we should have a right to know when they do not pay it. Greater transparency is needed to raise public awareness of the problem and to encourage big companies to do the right thing.
	We are approaching the end of the first Parliament since the 1920s in which people will be worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. This is a country where 4.9 million workers earn less than the living wage—the income necessary to achieve a minimum acceptable standard of living. That is one in five British workers who do not earn a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. The living wage is not just about having enough money to eat and pay the rent and the bills; it gives workers the means to live a dignified and decent life. For many of my constituents, the living wage means everything from being able to afford a family holiday now and again to peace of mind at the end of the month. It means being able to get home in time to see their children because they are not struggling to hold down two jobs. These are not unreasonable expectations, but they are being denied to far too many people by poverty-level pay.
	In May 2010, the Prime Minister declared that the living wage was
	“an idea whose time has come”.
	Sadly, under his Government, we are still waiting. In the past five years, the number of people earning less than the living wage has soared by an additional 1.4 million. The majority of working-age households living below the poverty line now have at least one adult in work. In my constituency, there are over 10,000 people whose hard work is rewarded with a pay packet which does not give them enough to live a decent life. The recovery may have reached some in the City of London, but for those struggling on low pay in Lewisham, it has yet to materialise.
	Every fortnight at my advice surgery I meet people who simply cannot afford to live off their earnings. They are often employed by some of our country’s biggest companies—the large supermarkets, for example. These are people who are doing the right thing—working hard and contributing—but they are not earning enough to pay the bills. I have been shown payslips where take-home wages are less than £1,000 a month, and I am asked what people are meant to live off when they
	have to pay £700 a month in rent. At the same time, their employers may make hundreds of millions of pounds a year in profit, much of which will go straight into the pockets of their shareholders.
	The irony is that this is not just bad for our country’s living standards; it is bad for the Treasury too. This Government’s failure to meet their own deficit reduction targets has proved that low pay is a drain on our public finances. The wages of under-paid staff routinely have to be topped up by Government through the payment of tax credits and in-work benefits. In the circumstances, this support for the low paid is the correct approach, but it means that at the end of the day it is the taxpayer who is subsidising the wages bill of large private companies. Low pay is driving up the benefits bill and making it harder to get the deficit down.
	The truth is that low pay stifles our economy, stunts taxes coming into the Treasury and ends up in more Government borrowing, which we can ill afford. That may be an economic plan of sorts, but it does not sound to me like one that is working. So something needs to change. In the UK, the living wage stands at £7.85 an hour, and the London figure is £9.15. I see no reason why big companies making significant profits should not pay it. If they choose not to do so, why should they not have to be up-front about that decision, and tell us?
	This Bill would not compel anyone to pay a living wage. What it would do is give the public and workers a mechanism by which they can find out who pays it and who does not. Listed companies are already required to produce annual remuneration reports, but these focus on directors’ pay. The Bill would provide some balance—a focus on the bottom as well as the top. The data required to comply with the Bill could be generated relatively simply by the companies in question, but their impact would be significant: they would end the silence on poverty pay that allows many of our biggest companies to inflate their profit margins at the expense of their staff and of every taxpayer.
	I have heard it said that low pay can in some ways be good for business. I guess the argument goes that increased profits should mean more money ploughed back into enterprise, meaning more economic growth. There are many assumptions in such an argument, and I am not so sure that it always stacks up. Low pay may sometimes mean higher short-term profits, but it can also mean demoralised staff who are preoccupied with their daily struggle to try to make work pay.
	Paying workers a wage that supports a decent standard of living is not just the responsible thing to do; the research shows that there are also clear business benefits. Low pay has high costs, in reduced productivity, higher absenteeism and lower staff retention. It is for those reasons that over 1,000 companies have now signed up to be accredited living wage employers, from the energy company SSE to Chelsea football club.
	Many public sector bodies are also leading the way. I was proud to be a member of Lewisham council when we became the first local authority to become a living wage employer, and I commend the determination of
	Lewisham’s mayor, Sir Steve Bullock, to roll out the living wage to even more contracted staff, despite a very tough financial outlook. I also commend you, Mr Speaker, for your efforts to make this House an accredited living wage employer.
	Big and small employers alike now pay a living wage. The south London-based Jane Jefferson Cleaning, whose tagline is “The Only Way is Ethics”, is the only domestic cleaning company to be recognised by the Living Wage Foundation. If a small cleaning company can pay the living wage, why can firms that have multi-million pound salaries at the top not pay it at the bottom? A director in a FTSE 100 company now earns, on average, 130 times more than their average employee, and 300 times more than the living wage, yet only 18 of those 100 companies pay the living wage. The Government’s policy of “wait and see” on low pay has clearly failed. Legislating for greater transparency would celebrate the best employers and expose injustice to public pressure.
	Britain cannot continue on its current path. The Government have failed to create the decent jobs and decent wages that we need for the next generation. Instead, they have preferred a silent race to the bottom, masked by loud trumpeting of falls in unemployment without a care for the nature and pay conditions of the jobs created. The next Labour Government will make the problem of low pay a national priority. We will increase the minimum wage to £8 an hour and give a tax break to companies that sign up to become living wage employers in the first year of the next Parliament.
	Decent pay requires the British economy to generate better jobs, with improvements in skills and support for investment in cutting-edge industries, but it also needs more honesty about the sources of low pay, putting pressure on large companies to meet their responsibilities to their workers and the taxpayer as well as to their shareholders.
	In conclusion, it might be entirely legal for large companies not to pay their staff a living wage, but that does not make it right. The Bill is not about forcing our largest employers to pay a wage above the statutory minimum; it is about encouraging them to make the right choices about the pay of the people they rely on. This simple Bill would introduce a simple reporting requirement. It would allow the public to recognise those companies that go above and beyond their legal obligations, enabling the consumer to identify those businesses that want to build a fairer economy as well as a stronger one. I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Heidi Alexander, Paul Blomfield, Lisa Nandy, Sarah Champion, Mr Steve Reed, Jenny Chapman, Natascha Engel, Teresa Pearce, Bridget Phillipson, Mr David Lammy, Nick Smith and Karl Turner present the Bill.
	Heidi Alexander accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 165).

Insurance Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee

[Mr Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	Insurance contracts: main definitions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrea Leadsom: Part 1 sets out some definitions for the Bill and is purely technical but, with your indulgence, Mr Chope, may I say again that this is a non-controversial Law Commission Bill, on which we had a constructive debate last week in the Second Reading Committee, and which has been scrutinised by a special Public Bill Committee in the other House. I hope that we can agree that clause 1 should stand part and move on to discuss the substantive clauses, taking each part in turn.

Cathy Jamieson: As the Minister has outlined, this is a non-controversial Bill overall, and we did indeed debate and discuss it last week. I have no issue with clause 1 and think that it is important to get on to the other areas of the Bill on which the Minister might wish to answer some questions.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Application and interpretation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Clauses 3 to 8 stand part.
	That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

Andrea Leadsom: As I explained to the Second Reading Committee, part 2 concerns the duty on prospective policyholders to disclose information to the insurer, which allows the insurer to assess and price the risk accurately. However, the existing law can be difficult to understand and even more difficult to comply with fully. A failure to provide all material information allows the insurer to refuse all claims under the contract.
	Under the Bill, policyholders still have a duty to disclose information, and they should make an active search for relevant information, but insurers might need to ask the policyholder questions if they require further clarification. If a policyholder fails to make a fair presentation of the risk, there is a new system of proportionate remedies for the insurer, under schedule 1 to the Bill, based on what the insurer would have done had the failure not occurred.

Cathy Jamieson: There is nothing particularly controversial in clause 2, or indeed in clauses 3 to 8 and schedule 1. As the Minister said, the clause provides that the duty of fair presentation, which is set out in the remainder of the part, applies in the event of a variation to a non-consumer insurance contract as well as upon the initial agreement or the contract.
	Clause 3 introduces a requirement on the insured to
	“make to the insurer a fair presentation of the risk”
	before the contract is entered into. That replaces existing duties in relation to disclosure and representations contained in the Marine Insurance Act 1906, but retains essential elements of those provisions in ensuring that the insured provides insurers with the information they require to decide whether to insure a risk and on what terms.
	Clause 4 relates to an issue that we debated last week in Committee. The clause defines what the insured knows, and ought to know, for the purposes of the duty of disclosure in clause 3, based on the insured’s duty in section 18 of the 1906 Act to disclose every material circumstance known to them, including everything which,
	“in the ordinary course of business”,
	ought to be known to them. There was some difference of opinion about the scope and applicability of the Bill’s phraseology, particularly the definition of “senior management” as
	“those…who play significant roles in the making of decisions”.
	We debated whether that definition was perhaps too narrow. Helpfully, the Minister told us that the Government had
	“amended the explanatory notes to make it clear that the senior management is likely to include the board, but can also go beyond it, depending on the corporate structure of the relevant policyholder.”—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 26 January 2015; c. 8.]
	She also gave us information about stakeholders who have commented on this and agree that the Bill’s drafting is appropriate. I welcome the move by the Government to tighten up the explanatory notes to deal with that question.
	Clause 5 deals with the knowledge of the insurer. Clause 6 provides that what an individual knows includes not only what they actually know but “blind-eye” knowledge—that is, knowledge that they ought to have but have deliberately neglected to acquire. Clause 7 serves to ensure that a company or other principal is not fixed with knowledge of a fraud practised against it by its agent or office. Clause 8 provides the insurer with remedies if there is a breach of the duty of fair representation. Schedule 1 sets out the insurer’s remedies for “qualifying breaches” under this clause.
	Given the assurances that we received and the changes that were made when we raised these points in Committee, I have no difficulty with these clauses.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 3 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 9
	 — 
	Warranties and representations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 10 and 11 stand part.

Andrea Leadsom: Part 3 deals with insurance warranties and similar terms. An insurance warranty is typically a promise by the policyholder to do something that mitigates the risk. Under the current law, any breach of warranty completely discharges the insurer from liability from the point of breach. That is so even if the breach is remedied before any loss is suffered and if the breached term had nothing to do with the loss. The insurer’s remedy therefore often seems unsuitable and overly punitive. The Bill provides that an insurer will be liable for insured losses arising after a breach of warranty has been remedied. It also prevents an insurer from refusing payment on the basis of a breached term that could have had no bearing on the risk of the loss that actually occurred, such as where a warranty concerning a fire alarm is breached and the insured then suffers a flood in the insured property. The Bill also abolishes “basis of the contract” clauses. These clauses convert every statement made by a policyholder on a proposal form into a warranty.

Cathy Jamieson: Again, it has been helpful to hear the Minister’s comments. We have no difficulty with these clauses.
	On clause 9, under the current law, an insurer may add a declaration to a non- consumer insurance proposal form or policy, stating that the insured warrants the accuracy of all the answers given or that such answers form the “basis of the contract”. That has the legal effect of converting representations into warranties. The insurer is discharged from liability for claims if the insured made any misrepresentation, even if it was immaterial and did not induce the insurer to enter into the contract. The Law Commission gave the example of a claim for flooding being refused, as the Minister suggested, because the insured had failed to install the right model of burglar alarm. The clause seeks to put an end to this practice by abolishing “basis of the contract” clauses in non-consumer insurance. Clause 10 replaces the existing remedy for breach of a warranty in an insurance contract.
	Clause 11 was initially not included in the Bill. That gave rise to the introduction in the other place of a new clause that replicated a similar clause originally included by the Law Commission pertaining to situations in which an insured had breached a term of contract but could show that
	“its breach of the term could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred.”
	In the Lords Committee, some expressed the view that this omission was an error. The Minister, Lord Newby, explained that the clause as originally drafted was
	“too controversial to go through the special procedure for uncontroversial Law Commission Bills.”
	He did, however, admit that it was
	“difficult to argue against the policy and to say that insurers should be entitled to refuse liability for a loss that is of a completely different nature from that contemplated by the breached term.”
	At the Government’s prompting, the Law Commission submitted a new draft, which became the current clause 11 and which was
	“intended to minimise the uncertainty inherent in the first formulation”.
	The clause acts to rectify the situation prior to the Bill when the actual nature of a breach of term was irrelevant. This has been a helpful process to ensure that that piece of tidying up was done. On that basis, we have no problem with these clauses.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12
	 — 
	Remedies for fraudulent claims

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 13 stand part.

Andrea Leadsom: Fraud is a serious and expensive problem for insurers and innocent policyholders alike. According to industry statistics, policyholders currently pay an additional £50 on every insurance policy because of the cost of fraud on insurers. The Bill therefore strengthens and clarifies the civil law aspect of the Government’s drive to combat fraudulent claims by policyholders. The Bill sets out clear statutory remedies for the insurer where the policyholder has made a fraudulent claim. It affirms the common law position that the policyholder forfeits the fraudulent claim. The insurer has no liability to pay any element of it and can reclaim anything it paid before it knew about the fraud.
	The Bill also clarifies an area of uncertainty, in that the insurer may choose to refuse any claim arising after the fraudulent act. However, previous valid claims should be paid in full. Finally, the Bill gives the insurer the equivalent remedies against a fraudulent member of a group insurance policy.

Cathy Jamieson: The Minister has again clearly outlined what the clauses do. As she said, clause 12 sets out the insurer’s remedies where the insured makes a fraudulent claim. It puts the common law rule of forfeiture on a statutory footing. Where the insured commits a fraud against the insurer, the insurer is not liable to pay the insurance claim to which the fraud relates. Where the insurer has already paid out insurance moneys on the claim and later discovers the fraud, the insurer may recover those moneys from the insured. As we have heard, that provides the insurer with a further remedy giving it an option to treat the contract as if it had been terminated at the time of the “fraudulent act”. That does not apply where a third party commits a fraud against the insurer or the insured, such as where a fraudulent claim is made against an insured who seeks recovery from its insurer under a liability policy.
	Clause 13 gives the insurer the remedies where there is fraud by one member of a group scheme. Again, we have no difficulty with these clauses standing part of the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14
	 — 
	Good Faith

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: With this it will convenient to discuss clauses 15 to 18 stand part.

Andrea Leadsom: Part 5 deals with two separate matters: the principle of good faith and the ability of parties to contract out of the provisions of the Bill.
	Clause 14 retains the statutory and common law principle that a contract of insurance is one predicated on good faith. However, the clause abolishes avoidance of the contract as the remedy for breach, recognising that avoidance is capable of operating very harshly against policyholders.
	The provisions are a default regime for business insurance contracts. They are expected to be appropriate for the majority of insurance contracts, but there may be circumstances when parties prefer to set out their own bespoke arrangements. However, if an insurer wishes to rely on a term that will operate more harshly against the policyholder than the Bill otherwise provides, clauses 16 and 17 require it to act transparently when the contract is made, by ensuring that the meaning of the alternative provision is clear, and by drawing the attention of the policyholder to it. In so far as the Bill applies to consumers rather than businesses, it is a mandatory regime. Insurers are not entitled to contract out of its provisions to the detriment of consumers.

Cathy Jamieson: Under the Marine Insurance Act 1906, insurance contracts are ones of “utmost good faith”. Clause 14 removes avoidance of the contract as a remedy for breach of that duty of good faith, both from the 1906 Act and at common law. The intention of clause 14 is that good faith will remain an interpretative principle, with section 17 of the 1906 Act and the common law continuing to provide that insurance contracts are contracts of good faith.
	Clauses 15 and 16 prohibit insurers from inserting in an insurance contract, terms that would leave the insured—be they a consumer or a non-consumer—in a worse position than that required by the Bill.
	Clause 16 defines transparency in respect of what an insurer must do to draw the insured’s attention to the disadvantageous terms of the contract. Clause 17 sets out the transparency requirements. For example, the insurer should take sufficient steps to draw disadvantageous terms to the insured’s attention within a reasonable time frame prior to their entering into the contract, but when an insured has knowledge of the term, they may not claim that the insurer has not brought it to their attention. Clause 18 deals with the insurer’s remedies where a member of a group insurance contract makes a fraudulent claim. Again, we do not think that these clauses are controversial and we are content for them to stand part of the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 15 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19
	 — 
	Power to change meaning of “relevant person” for purposes of 2010 Act

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to consider clause 20 and schedule 2 stand part.

Andrea Leadsom: Part 6 covers a topic that is distinct from insurance contract law. It amends the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 and will assist injured parties who have claims against parties that are now defunct where insurance was in place to cover such claims. As I said in the Second Reading Committee, part 6 will make it easier for mesothelioma sufferers to obtain compensation due from insolvent employers.
	The Bill allows the Secretary of State, by regulations, to add or remove circumstances in which a person will fall within the provisions of the 2010 Act. The intention in the first instance is to use this power to add insolvency and other similar events to the 2010 Act. Draft regulations are being prepared by the Ministry of Justice. Once the first set of regulations are made, the 2010 Act can be commenced. The Government are committed to bringing the 2010 Act into force as soon as practicable.

Cathy Jamieson: In the Second Reading Committee, I welcomed the fact that part 6 gives mesothelioma sufferers the opportunity to be dealt with in a timely fashion and to receive the justice they deserve. It is a terrible condition that many people have suffered as a work-related illness. We should do everything possible to support them.
	Clause 19 inserts a new section into the 2010 Act. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations adding or removing circumstances in which a person is a “relevant person” for the purposes of the Act, provided that the Secretary of State considers that the proposed circumstances involve dissolution, insolvency or financial difficulty, or are similar to those for the time being prescribed in sections 4 to 7 of the 2010 Act. That seems sensible and we have no problem with the clauses or the schedule standing part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	Will the provision affect third-party cover under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the level of insurance premiums taken out for motor insurance? May I also ask the Minister, en passant, to pay tribute to the Law Commission, on whose work this Bill is based?

Andrea Leadsom: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that this part of the Bill is designed to assist those who have insurance claims against parties that are now defunct, where insurance was originally in place to cover such claims. In theory, that could cover a motor insurance claim, but it is certainly not designed specifically to that end. Likewise, the cost of motor insurance will be determined by claims by the insurance companies themselves, so it is not envisaged that this will affect the cost of motor insurance.
	I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the Law Commission has done an excellent job. Essentially, the Bill makes the insurance market more effective and fairer.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21
	 — 
	Provision consequential on Part 2

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 22 and 23 stand part.

Andrea Leadsom: Part 7 deals with technical matters such as commencement, territorial extent and consequential amendments to existing legislation. The Bill repeals or amends various sections of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, which are superseded by provisions in parts 2 and 3. Clause 23 provides that the Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom, and that the provisions on insurance contract law will come into force 18 months after Royal Assent.
	From a practical perspective, the new provisions will not apply to existing insurance contracts, but rather to new contracts and variations agreed after the Bill comes into effect. The regulation-making power on the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 will come into force two months after Royal Assent.

Cathy Jamieson: As the Minister has said, clause 21 makes provisions consequential on part 2 and amends or repeals various sections of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, as well as the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012. She has also confirmed that clause 22 ensures that those provisions relating to fair presentation and good faith apply only to insurance contracts entered into after the end of the period of 18 months from the Bill’s entry into force. Clause 23 ensures that the Bill extends to the whole of the UK, apart from consequential provisions in clause 21 relating to Northern Ireland. Again, we are happy for these clauses to stand part of the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 22 and 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Bill reported, without amendment.
	Third Reading

Andrea Leadsom: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am grateful to hon. Members for the useful debates on the Bill, and glad to have taken it forward based on proposals by the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, to whom I reiterate my thanks. The Bill was rigorously scrutinised in the other place, and demonstrates the usefulness of the special parliamentary procedure for Law Commission Bills.
	Together with the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 that preceded it, the Bill marks the biggest reform to insurance contract law in more than a century. It is the product of careful consultation and consideration, and as a result it is well supported. It demonstrates the Government’s commitment to maintaining and growing the UK’s insurance industry both at home and abroad. I am grateful to all insurers, businesses and others who have supported the Bill, and to those who have participated in the Law Commission’s project and the legislative process. I am also grateful for the contribution made by the Opposition in both Houses towards the smooth passage of the Bill.

Cathy Jamieson: I, too, thank everyone who has worked on this important Bill, including the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. It has been interesting to follow the special procedure. There is no doubt that the Bill was rigorously scrutinised in the other place, and a number of amendments were tabled. That perhaps makes our task in Committee and on Third Reading somewhat easier, and will help to ensure that the Bill safely completes its passage through the House.
	I raised one issue that was originally suggested in the Law Commission reports but did not make it into the Bill: late payment. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to reply, but to recap briefly, the Law Commission report states:
	“We consider that a policyholder should have a remedy where an insurer has acted unreasonably in delaying or refusing payment.”
	It recommended
	“an implied term in every insurance contract that the insurer will pay sums due within a reasonable time”,
	with appropriate caveats. Those points were deemed too controversial to be included in a Law Commission Bill, and as I have said before, although the recommendations have merit, I recognise that a Law Commission Bill may not be the appropriate vehicle for putting such provisions into statute because of the way that “controversial” is interpreted.
	I asked the Minister whether she would consider legislating for late payment by some other means. She offered encouragement on that and also said that
	“evidence presented to the Law Commission, the Treasury and the Special Public Bill Committee demonstrated that the problems in the existing law are worse in theory than in practice.”––[Official Report, Insurance Bill Second Reading Committee, 26 January 2015; c. 9.]
	Although the Minister provided some encouragement, she perhaps also suggested that such measures would not be a priority for the immediate future. It would be helpful if she clarified that point and said whether the Government have plans to take the issue forward and to what time scale. In general terms, the Bill has taken us forward and is largely technical in how it updates insurance law in statute. We have given it a good airing and should see it successfully enacted.

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the chance to put on the record the fact that the Government support the principle that insurers should make payment of valid claims within a reasonable time, and that they should be liable for compensation where appropriate should they fail to do
	so. The Government are always looking at ways to support and improve the position of the UK insurance industry, and it is hoped that legislative opportunities will arise to include that measure with other insurance-related provisions.
	As the hon. Lady will know, the Government undertook a targeted consultation of insurance industry stakeholders in summer 2014 to assess support for the Bill and for a provision on late payment. The results of the consultation suggested that the late payment provision was not suitable for a Bill going through Parliament under the special procedure reserved for uncontroversial Law Commission Bills. The main arguments against such a provision were that it could lead to speculative litigation, or have the unwelcome effect of being used to exert undue pressure to expedite claim settlement, and those costs have not yet been quantified. Furthermore, adequate customer protections already exist, so the problems of late payment are worse in theory than in practice. The Financial Conduct Authority is currently undertaking a thematic review into the handling of commercial claims, and the issue is being considered from a regulatory angle.
	As the hon. Lady recognised, not all recommendations made by the Law Commission are suitable for the special procedure for non-controversial Bills, and that provision was omitted from the Bill specifically to ensure that the special procedure was not abused. I repeat, however, that the Government support the principle that insurers should make payment of valid claims within a reasonable time.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

National Insurance cOntributions Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
	Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the National Insurance Contributions Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mark Lancaster)

National Insurance Contributions bill (programme) (No.2)

Ordered,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the National Insurance Contributions Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8 September 2014 (National Insurance Contributions Bill (Programme)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mark Lancaster).

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Eleanor Laing: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords Amendment 1. If the House agrees to it, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
	Before Clause 1

Secondary Class 1 contributions: apprentices under 25

David Gauke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
	Some right hon. and hon. Members may recall the important initiative on apprentices announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement on 3 December. The Chancellor announced that the Government will abolish employer class 1 national insurance contributions for apprentices under the age of 25 from April 2016, building on the removal of employer class 1 national insurance contributions for all under 21-year-olds from April 2015.
	Amendments to section 9 and new section 9B of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 give effect to the Government’s intention to abolish employer class 1 NICs for apprentices under the age of 25. From April 2016, employers of apprentices under the age of 25 will pay a zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs on the earnings of those employees, and that zero rate will apply to earnings below the upper earnings limit.
	As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear, apprenticeships are at the heart of the Government’s drive to equip people of all ages with the skills valued by employers. This measure is intended to support employers who provide apprenticeships to young people by removing the requirement that they pay secondary class 1 NICs on earnings up to the upper earnings limit for those employees. The measure is also intended to support youth employment. Under this Government, employment is at its highest ever level while unemployment is now lower than when the Government came to power. However, there is more to do to tackle youth unemployment and ensure that no one is left behind.
	The amendment provides a zero rate of employer class 1 national insurance contributions on the earnings of apprentices under the age of 25 from 6 April 2016. The measure will apply to both new and existing apprentices aged under 25 and is not time limited.
	The main features of the clause are, first, that there is a regulation-making power to define “apprentice”. There are existing statutory definitions relating to apprenticeships. For example, in England and Wales, the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 introduced the concept of an apprenticeship agreement, which is defined in part with reference to “an apprentice”. Because education and training is a devolved matter, and because not all apprentices are employed under apprenticeship agreements, we will need to look at the approaches taken towards
	apprenticeships in the different devolved Administrations. The power will allow time to discuss the definition with interested parties such as the Skills Funding Agency and their devolved equivalents. The power will also enable us to respond simply to changing statutory definitions and requirements in future.
	Secondly, there are regulation-making powers to vary the age group to which the zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs for apprentices applies. For example, the Government could in future allow for an increase in the age bracket of apprentices falling into the zero rate earnings band of secondary class 1 NICs.
	Thirdly, there is a regulation-making power to ensure that the benefit of the zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs for apprentices can be enjoyed only in respect of earnings below a certain level. In other words, the power will provide a means to introduce an upper secondary threshold for apprentices in the same way as we are doing for under 21s. That threshold will be set at the level of the upper earnings limit in the 2016-17 tax year.
	The Government’s objective is to make all apprenticeships world class. Around £1.5 billion is spent annually to support apprenticeship training, and the Government are committed to driving up the quality of apprenticeships. We are currently taking forward a number of reforms that will have a positive impact. The Government believe that the measure will, alongside other initiatives on apprenticeships and the abolition of employer’s NICs for under 21s from April 2015, help to address the problem of youth unemployment in the UK.
	I hope that, with that explanation, the House will accept the amendment made in the other place.

Shabana Mahmood: I am grateful to the Minister for introducing Lords amendment 1, which was the main amendment made in the other place. As he said, it enacts the announcement made in the autumn statement that employer national insurance contributions for apprentices aged under 25 will be abolished from April 2016. The Opposition support the measure. There is agreement on both sides of the House and across party political boundaries that we need more apprenticeships; and that youth unemployment, and long-term youth unemployment, remain a problem not only for the individuals involved, but for the economy as a whole. We hope the measure helps to alleviate that somewhat.
	The Minister said that there is a regulation-making power within the measure for the definition of “apprentice” and referenced the 2009 Act definition, which relates to an apprenticeship contract. That concern was raised in the other place when the measure was debated. Will he give the House more information about progress in discussions with the devolved legislatures about the definition to be applied? How confident is he that the provision will not be manipulated in a way that enables a reduction by companies of their tax liabilities? The lack of a definition of “apprentice” causes concern that that might arise.
	The current quality of apprenticeships has come under scrutiny in this Parliament. A recent report from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills showed that 15% of apprentices are paid below the national minimum wage, and that 28% of level 2 and
	level 3 apprentices who do not have a written contract are paid below the national minimum wage. We also know that one in five apprentices receive no formal training. Will the Minister consider a stipulation on quality when he looks at the definition of apprentice? That would go some way to alleviating some of the concerns raised about potential gaps in the measure that could lead to abuse, or to a proliferation of apprenticeships that are not of a high quality and that do not add too much to the future prospects of the young people engaged in them. It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s further comments on those points.

David Gauke: I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the measures. It is worth noting the considerable progress made on apprenticeships under this Government. We have created 2 million apprenticeships in this Parliament, which is giving young people the skills they need to succeed in the global race and get on in life. That is significant progress—progress on the number of apprenticeships has been considerably faster than was previously expected. For example, the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), said in 2008 that he intended to have 90,000 more young people taking part in apprenticeships by 2013. He said that, together with opportunities for those in their 20s and older, that would mean 220,000 people starting an apprenticeship each year overall. In 2011-12, 520,000 people started an apprenticeship, so we can see that there has been dramatic progress. The measure helps us to pursue that policy yet further.

Jim McGovern: I am curious and intrigued as to how the Minister will define an apprenticeship these days. I was an apprentice in the construction industry. I served a four-year apprenticeship from the age of 16 to the age of 20. My father had to sign my indentures to say that I was indentured to that company, and possibly sold into slavery in a way. What is an apprenticeship these days? The Minister talks about half a million new apprenticeships, but are they apprenticeships as I understand them?

David Gauke: The hon. Gentleman goes to the heart of the question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) about who will qualify for the relief. As I have remarked, we are taking a power to define apprenticeships. Given that this is a devolved matter, it is important that we discuss it with the devolved Administrations. We want to support apprenticeships and will seek to achieve a broad definition for the purposes of the relief. However, the apprenticeship system across the UK is complex and evolving. Education and training is a devolved matter. Apprenticeships operate slightly differently in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and there are differences between Government-funded apprenticeships and independent employer schemes. The Government will discuss the definition of “an apprentice” with the Skills Funding Agency and its devolved equivalents before committing ourselves to a final definition. It is important that the definition is robust, satisfying minimum compliance standards while achieving the objective of supporting the provision of apprenticeships to the under 25s.
	In terms of overall support for apprenticeships, the Government have done a great deal. We spend about £1.5 billion annually to support apprenticeship training. In Budget 2014, £170 million of additional funding was made available for apprenticeship grants for employers in 2014-16, providing a grant of up to £1,500 per apprentice for small businesses. The new budget will fund more than 100,000 additional incentive payments for employers to take on young apprentices.
	It is also worth pointing out that in 2012 the National Audit Office recognised the strengths of the Government’s apprenticeship programme, highlighting how it continued to be valued by learners and businesses. It concluded that public spending on apprenticeships offered a good return, estimated at £18 for each £1 of Government investment. Evidence from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills suggests that returns may be higher, at £28 for every £1 of Government investment. I hope Members will resist the temptation to criticise the substantial progress that has been made on apprenticeships over the course of this Parliament. It has been significant.
	On the definition of apprentices, which I touched on earlier, there will need to be discussion with the devolved Administrations and the Skills Funding Agency. We want a robust definition, but we have to bear in mind the complexities in this area.
	On eligibility, for a business to be eligible to work with training providers to create an apprenticeship programme, the employer offering an apprenticeship needs to employ an apprentice for a minimum of 30 hours per week, pay at least the national minimum wage for apprentices, support on-the-job learning and be involved in reviewing their progress. On the question raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood regarding manipulation, I would make the point that those safeguards are in the system.
	One further point I believe is important is that, as the Government are doing with employment allowance and under-21s from April this year and as we did when we came to office and increased the threshold before employer national insurance contributions is paid, we have done a great deal to reduce the burden on businesses of employer national insurance contributions. That has helped in creating the substantial progress in employment we have seen in recent years. Had we pursued the policy we inherited—an increase in the jobs tax—we would not have seen that progress.

Steven Baker: On reducing the burden on business, the Government have previously considered the notion of merging national insurance. Has the Minister made any progress down that line? I am acutely aware that national insurance still creates the impression that people have contributed to a fund out of which benefits are paid, when of course they are mostly pay-as-you-go. Can we reduce the burden on business by simplifying national insurance by simplifying the overall tax system?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point in this context. He is absolutely right that the Office of Tax Simplification recommended we looked at that. There is quite a lot going on in relation to payroll: devolution of income tax in Scotland, the auto-enrolment of pensions and the introduction of real-time information to the payroll system. They have caused considerable
	challenges—all for good reason; all are doing much to improve the tax system—and we have held off pursuing further integration of income tax and the national insurance contributions system.
	My hon. Friend was right to raise a point about people’s understanding of the tax system and greater transparency. The Government have introduced tax summaries so that people can see how much they are paying in income tax and national insurance. That brings greater transparency to our tax system, so we have made progress on that front. On the integration of national insurance and income tax more widely, it remains a position we continue to review. Some evidence from internal reviews was that the benefits to business of bringing the two systems together were perhaps not as great as some outside commentators had anticipated. In those circumstances, we did not want to rush into this matter, but I assure my hon. Friend that we continue to keep it under review.

Steven Baker: Will the Minister remind me whether tax summaries include employers’ national insurance? I am always conscious that when we are employees we must generate an amount of value for our employer somewhat greater than even our gross pay, so is employers’ national insurance contribution also reflected in the summary? If not, could it be?

David Gauke: There is a reference to employers’ national insurance contribution. The tax summaries state how much is paid in income tax and in employees’ national insurance contributions. There is also a line in the summaries saying, “Your employer has paid this much employers’ national insurance contribution.” Returning to the issue directly before us in relation to apprenticeships, there is an argument—I think a lot of economists would make this point—that ultimately the burden of employers’ national insurance contributions is taken up by the employee, as they receive less in salary as a consequence. There is also a case that it may be a disincentive for employers to take on employees.
	We believe this sensible and well-targeted measure will encourage businesses to take on apprentices. We have not focused particularly on the limit, but there is provision to prevent manipulation such as the classifying of premier league footballers as apprentices, which might result in a 24-year-old footballer paying no NICs on a salary of £1 million. We have sought to address such abuses.

George Hollingbery: Will the Minister develop that point a little by saying exactly how many apprentices he thinks the change will encourage?

David Gauke: We anticipate that there will be about 3 million apprenticeships over the course of the next Parliament. The provision will come into effect in 2016-17. Not every apprentice is under 25, so not every apprentice will benefit from the provisions, but a large number of apprentices in the next Parliament will benefit.
	Overall, we estimate that about 180,000 employers offering apprenticeships in the UK are likely to benefit from the measure. Apprenticeship data from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills for England for the 2013-14 academic year show that about
	500,000 apprentices under the age of 25 are employed throughout the country, and we estimate that about 130,000 apprentices in England are aged 21 to 24. That group will be directly affected by the measure, with those under 21 already benefiting from the zero rate for under-21s from April this year. I hope that information is helpful to the House.
	Many Members were delighted by the Chancellor’s announcement on apprenticeships in the autumn statement, which demonstrated, yet again, the Government’s commitment to apprenticeships. If we wish to succeed in the global race, we need a well-educated and well-trained work force and to support employers who provide the training and experience that young people need if they are to be more productive and effective and more likely to make a substantial contribution to the economy.
	Quite rightly, we often debate how to improve living standards, but ultimately it is down to improvements in productivity. As the economist Paul Krugman said—I do not often quote him:
	“Productivity isn’t everything, but…it is almost everything”.
	As part of our long-term economic plan, one measure we are taking to improve productivity is ensuring a well-trained work force, and encouraging apprenticeships is key to that. It is yet another aspect of our long-term economic plan. It will help us improve our productivity, and as productivity increases, so too will wages, salaries and living standards.

George Hollingbery: Will the Minister elaborate on the Government’s own productivity and on whether our investment in apprenticeships has been compared with other potential investments in productivity?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I said, the Government invest about £1.5 billion a year in apprenticeships. In its 2012 report, the NAO suggested that for every £1 spent in this area, we got a return of £18, and studies by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills suggest that the return might be even greater: £28 for every £1 invested. Therefore, this offers good value for money. Our policy on apprenticeships is an additional step, and I am delighted that the tax system can be used in this way. Once again, it demonstrates that the Government are on the side of those who wish to work hard, improve their skills and get on in life
	With those remarks, I hope that the House will agree with the Lords amendment.
	Lords amendment 1 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived.

David Burrowes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I think we shall treat of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order afterwards.

David Burrowes: rose—

Mr Speaker: Does it relate to current business?

David Burrowes: No, it concerns the next business.

Mr Speaker: In that case, we shall come later to the hon. Gentleman. I am saving him up. It would be a shame to squander him too early.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Consequential etc power

David Gauke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 2.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 3 to 5.

David Gauke: This group comprises four minor technical amendments to clause 2 and schedule 1, which deal with simplifying the collection of class 2 national insurance contributions payable by the self-employed.
	It might help the House if I briefly outline the four amendments. Amendments 2 and 3 are the Government’s response to the report, published on 27 November, by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the delegated powers contained in the Bill. The report drew to the House’s attention the power in clause 2 to amend primary and secondary legislation as a consequence of the reform of class 2 NICs. This power is currently subject to the negative procedure. The Committee said that the justification in HMRC’s “Delegated Powers Memorandum” was not sufficient for the negative procedure to apply where the power allows for the amendment or repeal of primary legislation, and the Committee recommended that in this instance the power be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government have considered and acted on the Committee’s report. Lords amendment 2 provides that regulations made under clause 2 that amend or repeal primary legislation be subject to the affirmative procedure. Lords amendment 3 provides that the negative procedure will continue to apply to any use of the power set out in clause 2 where a statutory instrument does not contain any regulations amending or repealing primary legislation.
	Lords amendments 4 and 5 are minor technical amendments dealing with the simplification of the collection of class 2 NICs payable by the self-employed. This is a matter that I have previously debated, if not at great length, with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). Amendment 4 amends schedule 1, which inserts new section 11A into the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. It will ensure that the relevant self-assessment penalties apply to class 2 contributions collected through SA by adding a missing reference to the SA under-declaration penalty contained in schedule 24 to the Finance Act 2007. It was always the Government’s intention to align penalties for class 2 contributions more closely with those for SA as part of the reform of class 2 so that the self-employed are not subject to two different regimes, but this penalty was unintentionally omitted. Lords amendment 5 makes a corresponding amendment to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.
	With that explanation, which I know the House was keen to hear, I hope it will agree with the Lords amendments.
	Lords amendment 2 agreed to.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister to move the remaining Lords amendments.

David Gauke: Formally.

Mr Speaker: It is always a joy to hear the Minister develop the argument, but he is exercising a self-denying ordinance. I must say that the way he has addressed
	matters thus far—comprehensively and courteously, in his usual manner—has been accompanied by a slight increase in the number of Members present for the next business. It is not for me to suggest that those two phenomena are causally related, but some people might think they are. I suppose if one is in a tight corner and hoping that the Minister will develop the arguments fully, one can always best depend (a) on a Treasury Minister and (b) on a lawyer, and he is both.
	Lords amendments 3 to 5.

David Burrowes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Has any consideration been given to disapplying Standing Order No. 16(1), which allocates 90 minutes to consideration of the mitochondrial donation regulations? When similar regulations, concerning embryo research, came before the House in 2000, some 3 hours and 19 minutes were taken. Through the usual channels, the House has previously disapplied Standing Orders when dealing with issues of great significance, not least in this area. Obviously, many are concerned about the significant impact of these regulations, not least in respect of mothers at risk of passing on serious diseases to their children. This matter is of great significance to the country, because, for the first time in the world, we would be permitting human germ-line genetic modification. Given the significance of these matters, not just for those in the House but for the public, and in the interest of considering them in detail, I would have thought these matters deserved fuller debate and scrutiny, although I respect the fact that we will be turning to a general debate on rural phone and broadband connectivity afterwards. Given all that and the significant safety and legal issues, as well as ethical issues, surely we need longer than 90 minutes. Has any consideration been given to disapplying Standing Orders?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman both for his point of order and for his usual courtesy in notifying me in advance of its intended content. I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman, but I fear—I say this in all sincerity—that I am unable to help him. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is within the power of Ministers to propose an extension of time available for a debate to which the 90-minute limit under Standing Order No. 16 applies. Notice is required, and there is no such motion on today’s Order Paper. I am clear that that is extremely regrettable, so far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned and many other Members may feel likewise. But we are where we are. In practical terms, the possibility of proposing such an extension is in the hands of the Government business managers, and is not available to Back Benchers.
	The hon. Gentleman knows my views about the importance of empowering Back Benchers, and I have never been much fussed about empowering Ministers in any Administration, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Obviously, however, the Speaker has to operate within the established procedures of the House. As far as I can see—I have taken advice on the matter—today’s business must therefore conclude after an hour and a half.
	The Minister is always a most courteous Minister, and she will have taken note of what has been said. Knowing the Minister as I do, I know she is planning to
	be pithy in her remarks to facilitate the majority of Back Benchers. About 18 Members wish to speak in the debate. If Members help each other, it will maximise the number of contributors. I fear we will have to leave it there for now.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology

Jane Ellison: I beg to move,
	That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be approved.
	Mitochondria are present in almost every cell in the body and produce the energy we need to function. This is why they are often referred to as “the battery pack” of the cell. Unhealthy mitochondria can cause severe medical disorders, known as mitochondrial disease, for which there is no cure. The techniques provided for by these regulations offer the only hope for some women who carry the disease to have healthy, genetically related children who will not suffer from the devastating and often fatal consequences of serious mitochondrial disease.
	First, I would like to bring the House up to date with the process followed since the principle of mitochondrial donation was first debated by Parliament during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 in 2007-08. There has been much consideration of this issue in this Parliament. Over the last five years, there has been extensive engagement and consultation with the public on this issue, including an ethical assessment by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in 2012; a public dialogue and consultation exercise carried out by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in 2012-13; and a public consultation on draft regulations carried out by the Department of Health in 2014.
	There have been three reports into the safety and efficacy of mitochondrial donation techniques by an expert panel convened by the HFEA which were published in 2011, 2013 and 2014. The expert panel members were selected for their broad-ranging scientific and clinical expertise, and for having no direct or commercial interest in the outcome of the review. Indeed, Professor Frances Flinter, a genetics consultant who works with affected families, has said:
	“There has been more scientific review of this proposed process than any other medical technology.”

Robert Flello: The Minister says that there is no point in further review, but the safety tests recommended by the HFEA in its three reports have not yet been completed, written up or peer reviewed. Does that sound like a completed analysis?

Jane Ellison: I will come to that point in my remarks.
	There has been much parliamentary scrutiny of the proposals, including three parliamentary debates and over 200 parliamentary questions in both Houses. As part of this parliamentary scrutiny, the Science and Technology Committee held an evidence session into mitochondrial donation in October last year. Following the hearing, the Chair, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) who I see in his place, wrote to me on behalf of the Committee, expressing the opinion that there was sufficient information for Parliament to make an informed decision, and urging the Government to bring forward regulations. Given the extensive scrutiny in this Parliament, I believe it is right to allow this
	Parliament to decide whether to take the next step for mitochondrial donation, which can progress only with these regulations.
	The two proposed techniques, maternal spindle transfer and pro-nuclear transfer, are covered by the regulations. They are about replacing the battery pack that contains a small number of unhealthy genes with a healthy battery pack. Mitochondrial DNA is just 0.054% of our overall DNA and none of our nuclear DNA, which determines our personal characteristics and traits and is not altered by mitochondrial donation.
	I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the scientists at Newcastle university, who have led the world in the development of the new techniques—an area where Britain is at the forefront of life sciences.

Robert Flello: The Minister is extremely generous with her time. She says that these scientists are leading the way, but is she not aware of the work done in China over a decade ago in exactly this area? It was clearly pioneering, and it led to the Chinese Government outlawing the use of these techniques because of the appalling, tragic outcomes.

Jane Ellison: I am aware of that work, which has been the subject of extensive parliamentary questions. The expert panel considered all of those issues, including that piece of work, during the course of their deliberations.

David Burrowes: Does the Minister acknowledge that scientists broadly accept that the procedures are nuclear cell transfer? That is what regulations 4 and 7 make clear. That means that nuclear DNA in the egg is explicitly altered. Therefore one has to agree that an honest, clear definition of what we are dealing with is genetic modification.

Jane Ellison: No, I cannot accept that description. I recognise that my hon. Friend has objections to the procedure, but I do not recognise his description. Nuclear DNA is not affected; mitochondrial DNA is different.
	As well as paying tribute to the scientists at Newcastle university, I want to pay tribute to the Lilly Foundation, a charity founded by families who have lost their children to serious mitochondrial disease, and who have shown us the human suffering behind this scientific advance. Many right hon. and hon. Members, like me, have constituents who are affected, and I am sure that some Members will talk about such families in their own speeches.

Steven Baker: Does the Minister accept that a person born as a result of a mitochondrial replacement would not pass on mitochondrial disease to their successors? In other words, the germ line would have been modified so that the mitochondrial disease had stopped with their parents. It seems to me that if she accepts that the germ line has been modified, what she said a few moments ago cannot possibly be right.

Jane Ellison: We have made it clear that the removal of the faulty mitochondria will be passed on to the next generation. That is exactly what we have been describing, but I do not accept my hon. Friend’s description of it as
	genetic modification. It has to be said that there is no universally agreed definition of genetic modification, but for the purposes of these regulations, we have used a working definition and it involves not altering the nuclear DNA.

Fiona Bruce: rose—

Jane Ellison: I know my hon. Friend is going to make her own contribution. If she will forgive me, I want to outline for the benefit of Members less familiar with the regulations their detailed content.
	Turning to that detail, the regulations are made under the powers in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. They were added to in 2008 to permit mitochondrial donation to prevent the transmission of serious mitochondrial disease, anticipating the advancement of science to this point. Regulations 3 to 5 set out the circumstances for mitochondrial donation techniques using eggs; regulations 6 to 8 set out the circumstances for mitochondrial donation using embryos. They would allow the use of the two techniques that have been subjected to extensive UK-wide review and consultation: maternal spindle transfer and pro-nuclear transfer.
	Regulations 11 to 15 and 19 set out the information that can be provided about a mitochondrial donor to any child born from the donation and information to that donor. Regulations 16 and 17 set out special provisions around consent that were identified through the public consultation process. These regulations apply UK-wide, and the devolved Administrations have been kept informed of development and progress.

Fiona Bruce: Does the Minister consider that the Government’s own regulator, the HFEA, was wrong to state, in a consultation document that “PNT involves genetically modifying a human embryo”?

Jane Ellison: I shall deal shortly with the regulatory regime that the HFEA would introduce. However, that and many other points have already been examined in great detail and responded to in great detail in parliamentary answers, to which I refer my hon. Friend.

Richard Fuller: It is clear to many of us who have spoken to our constituents that this procedure will make a huge difference to individual families. There is, in a sense, an ethical gateway to the framework that will allow the scientists and medical experts to move forward. Can my hon. Friend tell us why there appear to be a number of people who, for ethical and religious reasons, are quite close to agreeing with the Government but have not quite agreed yet, and have asked for more time?

Jane Ellison: I think that those Members may speak for themselves during the debate. No one would deny that this is ground-breaking science—it is—but there have been three expert panel reviews. What I am trying to demonstrate in my speech is that we have taken all the necessary rigorous steps towards the point at which Parliament can make an informed decision. I think it important to differentiate things that are knowable and on which Parliament can make that informed decision, and things that can only be known when we take the next step, which involves making the regulations. I hope that that is helpful.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jane Ellison: I want to make a little progress, but I may take another intervention later. I am conscious that many Members wish to speak.
	There has been much discussion of the safety of mitochondrial donation techniques. As I have said, three reports have been produced by the HFEA-convened expert panel during the current Parliament. On each occasion, the panel has concluded that there is nothing to indicate that the two donation techniques are unsafe. Although the panel has recommended that further experiments should be conducted, it expects such research to support the conclusions that it has reached so far.
	In public discussion, there has been some misunderstanding of the term “critical”, which was used by the expert panel. That is helpfully clarified in the HFEA’s introductory briefing note, which has been endorsed by the panel and which makes clear that the experiments could take place before or after the approval of regulations by Parliament. The chief medical officer sent a copy of the briefing note to all Members yesterday.

William Cash: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are profound legal reasons for believing that the regulations are ultra vires in respect of the primary Act—the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008—and are also in breach of the clinical trials arrangements that are set out in the European Union clinical trials directive? Does she understand that that allegation has been made, and what is her response?

Jane Ellison: The clinical trials directive applies only to medicines. It does not apply to embryology, so it is not relevant in this case.

Brian H Donohoe: rose—

William McCrea: rose—

Jane Ellison: I am sorry. I know that many Members wish to intervene, but I am trying to leave time for Back-Bench contributions.
	If the regulations are passed by Parliament, the HFEA will introduce a robust regulatory process, as it has in other areas of fertility treatment. The regulations would also establish important safeguards through the HFEA’s own licensing procedures. Before licences could be issued to providers of mitochondrial donation, they would have to demonstrate that they could carry out the procedure safely and effectively. Each provider would need to be licensed, and treatment for each patient would be approved on a case-by-case basis. Decisions would be based on the scientific evidence and advice that were submitted to the licensing committee. The HFEA is highly respected across the globe as a model for the regulation of fertility and embryology treatments and research. Many other countries do not have such a framework.
	I recognise that some Members disagree in principle with mitochondrial donation, and I respect their point of view, although I do not share it. To those who do not disagree in principle I have sought to demonstrate—as we have sought to demonstrate over the years of expert panel reviews and further consideration—that all reasonable and rigorous steps have been followed to reach the point at which Parliament can be asked to make an informed decision about whether to allow these techniques
	to be licensed on a case-by-case basis. It is a bold step for Parliament to take, but it is a considered and informed step.
	This is world-leading science within a highly respected regulatory regime, and for the families affected it is a light at the end of a very dark tunnel. I commend the regulations to the House.

Luciana Berger: The impassioned and thoughtful contributions to the public debate that we have heard in recent weeks and months are testimony to what a sensitive and complex matter this is. Only last night, an event held in Committee Room 10 was attended by hundreds of people who are interested in the debate, and we heard representations from both sides.
	On one hand, we have celebrated the triumph of science that these new techniques represent. It is thanks to years of pioneering research by the university of Newcastle on how we can prevent the transmission of genetic mutations that we are finally reaching the point at which we can consider using these transformative techniques in humans. We have within our reach the possibility of eradicating mitochondrial disease from families who have been blighted by it for generations: families who have endured a disease for which there is no cure, who have suffered daily battles with painfully debilitating symptoms, and who have sadly lost their children prematurely. Those families have had to face up to the risk, and perhaps the certainty, that to be a parent must come at the expense of a difficult and, in too many cases, painful life for their children. Not only would children born through such techniques be free of such conditions, but so would their children and grandchildren. This treatment would break a chain of misery that would otherwise have ruined generations of lives.
	On the other hand, we are grappling with the serious ethical and moral questions that are raised by the proposed introduction of such techniques. Members have previously shared their anxiety about the uncharted territory in which we now find ourselves. The proposed regulations would make Britain the first country to legalise mitochondrial transfer, and scientists have acknowledged that there would always be a “leap of faith” the first time the technique was used.

Robert Flello: I think we need to dispel the myth that there will be a “first time”. This was done more than a decade ago. In its recent analysis, the HFEA ignored the Zhang study. The Minister is shaking her head. She has clearly not read the study, which showed that when the technique was first tried, triplets were conceived. One was terminated almost immediately—within 30 days—and, of the other two, one was stillborn and the other died as a result of miscarriage. That is the reality. This is not groundbreaking; it has been done before.

Luciana Berger: I shall be dealing with the expert panel reviews that have been conducted since the date to which my hon. Friend has referred.
	It is right that we have had a chance to hear all the arguments and to give them full and proper consideration, but it is critical to the integrity of the decision that is
	eventually reached for the debate to be based on the facts. When debating matters such as this, we will naturally hear a number of contradictory assertions. I am sure that the Minister will reassure the House about any further issues that are raised during the debate.

Brian H Donohoe: May I ask the shadow Minister a simple question? Is this a case of DNA being genetically modified?

Luciana Berger: I do not believe that that is what is being proposed, but I shall deal with my hon. Friend’s very specific point later in my speech.

Richard Drax: I know from a meeting that I attended before the debate that the HFEA has said, “PNT involves genetically modifying a human embryo”.

Luciana Berger: That point was raised in an earlier intervention. I think it is clear from reports following reviews by the expert panel that it has already been specifically addressed, but I shall deal with it in more detail later.

Julian Huppert: There seems to be a lot of confusion between nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA. It might help the hon. Lady and the House if I point out that they have completely different origins. They have a different genetic code; they are not related. The origin of mitochondria is bacteria that were engulfed by cells. They are very different. The House should be aware of that.

Luciana Berger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
	Many concerns have been raised, the first of which is that this process is being rushed through. Anyone who has been involved in the development of these techniques would disagree that this has moved quickly. Professor Doug Turnbull and his team at the university of Newcastle have been researching this for 15 years. It was over six years ago, back in 2008, that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was amended to introduce the powers to allow regulations that would enable mitochondria replacement to take place to be brought forward. It was back in 2010 that researchers at the university of Newcastle developed the techniques to avoid diseased mitochondria being passed from a mother to her children. After another three years of consultation and review processes, the Government announced in July this year that they would be bringing forward the regulations to enable mitochondrial donation techniques to be used, and that is what we are voting on today.

Guy Opperman: The hon. Lady and I both attended the meeting last night, which was very productive and helpful. Does she agree that this is about choice for the families? I have constituents who have this particular disease and constituents who work at Newcastle university, and what we are trying to do is provide a scientific way forward, under a highly structured and licensed regime, to alleviate these particular families’ suffering.

Luciana Berger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It was clear last night when we heard from the affected families that they wanted that choice, and these regulations very specifically only apply to those families that are affected by mitochondrial disease.

Peter Bone: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Luciana Berger: I am going to finish my point, if I may.
	In the intervening years the science and ethics of these techniques have been extensively debated. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics and the HFEA held extensive public consultations in 2012 and identified broad public support for the use of these techniques. There have been three expert scientific review panels—in April 2011, March 2013 and June 2014—all of which found no evidence to suggest that the techniques are unsafe for clinical use, and only last week a group of eminent scientists and experts in medical ethics, including Professor Sir John Sulston, Baroness Warnock and Sir Paul Nurse, wrote to The Times urging Parliament to approve the new regulations. They argued that the question parliamentarians must consider is not whether we would want to use this technique ourselves, but whether there are grounds to prevent affected families from doing so. I again reiterate what we have heard in the representations from families, and particularly women of child-bearing age: they want the opportunity to use these techniques.

Peter Bone: The hon. Lady is making a very good speech and is trying to make it balanced. She talked about last night’s meeting, which I understand went on for quite some time, and there has been a lot of debate outside this Chamber, but is she satisfied that we come here to the Chamber this afternoon with only 90 minutes to discuss this? Would it not be better if we were to withdraw this motion today and come back with more time to debate it next week?

Luciana Berger: Unfortunately, it is not in the Opposition’s gift to determine the time allocated for these debates. I would have welcomed further debate, and we had an opportunity in a previous Backbench Business Committee-initiated debate to discuss these matters.

William McCrea: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Luciana Berger: I am going to make some progress, because I am conscious—referring back to the intervention of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—that we have limited time and many Back Benchers wish to contribute.
	It is important to note that the use of these techniques will not be rushed into lightly if Parliament does pass them today, and specialist clinicians will then have to obtain a licence from the HFEA to use the techniques. We heard last night that this will only be in centres of excellence, and the HFEA will consider applications on a case-by-case basis.
	We have heard concerns in previous debates that allowing mitochondrial donation is a dangerous road to start down, and that it could potentially lead to designer babies and parents being able to select the physical characteristics of their children. But we have also heard
	in the public debate that these fears do not take into account that these regulations are very specific and cover only mitochondrial DNA, not the nuclear DNA that determine our physical characteristics. The legislation only permits the use of these techniques in the clearly defined situation of incurable mitochondrial disorders.
	The fact that these techniques apply only to the mitochondrial DNA and not to nuclear DNA should provide further reassurance to those Members concerned that this process would result in “three-parent babies.” As we have heard, mitochondrial DNA only controls mitochondrial function and energy production. Importantly, nuclear DNA, which makes us who we are and determines appearance and personality, will not be altered by the techniques that we are discussing today.
	The regulations clarify that a mitochondrial donor is not to be treated as a parent, in contrast to the legal position for sperm and egg donors, who are treated as people who would, or might, be the legal parent of a child born from their donation.
	There are questions around the safety of these techniques. As we have heard, this technique has received unprecedented scrutiny by the HFEA’s specially convened expert scientific review panel. However, it is possible that side effects could emerge over time and scientists have acknowledged that there would always have to be a “leap of faith” the first time the technique is used in humans.

Edward Leigh: On the question of safety, does the hon. Lady not consider it significant that the Food and Drug Administration in the United States said that it was not clear that the scientific procedures were effective and safe? The FDA, of course, refused to allow the use of Thalidomide while we did, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Luciana Berger: I understand that the FDA has written to the British press in the course of the last week to contradict that position. There is a very different political situation in the US, and there is a very different set-up there in terms of the FDA compared with here and what we are discussing today.

Angela Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact is that any scientist would say that no technique is entirely safe but the risk in this case is very low indeed, and completely justifies the leap of faith she describes, which is in effect a further advance in the use of IVF technology—which itself was pioneered as a leap of faith in 1978?

Luciana Berger: My hon. Friend makes some very important points, particularly about the assessment of risk, which has been done extensively throughout this process.
	The question is whether the benefits of preventing the transmission of mitochondrial disease, and the likelihood that children will continue to be born who will die in infancy, outweighs the risks of the techniques. The scientific community and the families experiencing mitochondrial disease say that they do; and according to research, almost 2,500 women in Britain of child-bearing age are at risk of passing the condition on to their children. It is now up to Members to decide whether they agree.

Cheryl Gillan: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for setting out a balanced case. Can she clear something up for me? I understand that there are two sources of mitochondrial disease: the DNA in the nucleus as well as the mitochondrial DNA. Can she confirm that mitochondrial disease from the nuclear DNA will remain in our population even after this treatment is licensed?

Luciana Berger: I hope the Minister might be able to address that in her response to the debate, with the support of her officials. It is not something I have been made aware of, and it certainly has not come up in any of the discussions or debates that I have attended.
	I will now conclude, as I know that many Members wish to contribute. The research has been done, the reviews carried out and the experts and the public have been consulted. Time is precious for those parents at risk of passing on mitochondrial inherited disease to their children, and I believe that we must not delay any further.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. On account of the number of Members wishing to contribute to this debate, I must impose with immediate effect a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. That limit will almost certainly have to be revised downwards, and I appeal to colleagues to help me to help them.

Fiona Bruce: I want to speak against the Government motion, and I draw the House’s attention to my alternative motion in part 2 of the Order Paper—page 54—although it is not voteable.
	Human mitochondrial disease is a dreadful condition and, as a caring society, we must do all we can to address it, and do so as sensitively as we can for those families affected by it. As a caring society, however, we must also do so in an ethical manner and with proper regard for safety. I believe that the regulations we are considering today fail on both counts—ethics and safety—and that they are inextricably interlinked.
	Let me be straightforward: I do oppose these proposals in principle. However, that should not prevent my concerns regarding their safety from being given a fair hearing. One of the two procedures that we are being asked to sanction today—pro-nuclear transfer—involves the deliberate creation and destruction of at least two human embryos, and in practice probably more, to create a third embryo, which it is hoped will be free of human mitochondrial disease. Are we happy to sacrifice two early human lives to make a third life?

Paul Beresford: I question my hon. Friend’s definition of “embryo”. We are talking about two ova being used to create one embryo.

Fiona Bruce: Let me put it this way. Some may take the view that at such an early stage of human life, it is acceptable deliberately to create human embryos to then destroy them. However, the truth is that once upon a time I was an embryo and so was every other Member in this Chamber.
	This debate is about the principle of genetically altering—indeed, genetically creating—a human being, and no matter how well meaning the motives, and my heart goes out to the families with mitochondrial disease, this technique will not cure that disease. That answers the question asked in the intervention on the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), the shadow Minister. This technique will not cure that disease.

David Davies: I am completely undecided on this issue. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether it is the case that any woman taking the pill could arguably be destroying an embryo? If it is the case, what is the difference morally between using this technology and using the pill?

Fiona Bruce: What we are talking about is a particular process, which we know—with certainty—will destroy embryos. That is what I am addressing. As I say, this technique will involve the permanent alteration of the human genetic code. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which was cited by the shadow Minister in support of her arguments, says that these techniques are
	“a form of germline gene therapy.”
	This alteration will be passed down generations. The implications of this simply cannot be predicted. However, one thing is for sure: as someone has said, once this alteration has taken place and once the genie is out of the bottle, and once these procedures that we are being asked to authorise today go ahead, there will be no going back for society, and certainly not for the individuals concerned.

William McCrea: Does the hon. Lady find it strange that while the shadow Minister was telling the House that we should support these regulations, she had no answer to the direct question she was asked by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), and that all she could say was that she hoped the Minister would clear the matter up?

Fiona Bruce: I was indeed surprised, but in a sense that is why those who have made the case for much more parliamentary time and debate on this issue are quite right.
	There will be no going back for society and certainly not for the individuals and children involved. My hon. Friend the Minister said that we have taken all rigorous steps before bringing this matter to the House, but it is profoundly concerning that the outstanding pre-clinical trials, as recommended by the HFEA panel, have still not been undertaken, written up and peer-reviewed. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, setting aside the completion of pre-clinical trials, there have been no clinical trials of these procedures, that there will be no clinical trials of them and that, in effect, if we pass the regulations the techniques will be applied to the creation of children without clinical trials? In other words, we will be approving uncontrolled experimentation—because there will be no controls—on children. In the absence of clinical trials, would that not effectively contravene EU regulations?

Robert Flello: There is a lot of muttering around the Chamber that there will be clinical trials, but there cannot be clinical trials because they would breach the EU directive.

Fiona Bruce: That is exactly the point I was about to make. As has been highlighted in a letter from 44 MEPs who have written from the European Parliament this week to the Secretary of State for Health, the EU directives—the European clinical trials directive 2001, which was confirmed by the 2014 directive in the same area—state that
	“No gene therapy trials may be carried out which result in modifications to the subject’s germ line genetic identity.”
	My hon. Friend the Minister indicated that in some way these particular procedures were excluded from these trials. That cannot be correct. The European clinical trials directive 2001 applies to clinical trials involving germ-line engineering. It applies to all clinical trials using medicine, and to these procedures. For the Department of Health to argue that it can move straight to using these procedures on children without clinical trials gives us, apart from anything else, one reason to vote against these regulations.
	If anyone doubts that, Lord Brennan QC has given a legal opinion on these regulations, which is of central importance. He says:
	“It is a well-established principle that EU law is to be interpreted…in light of the purpose, values, social and economic goals the provisions aim to achieve. Given that…both the Directive and the 2014 Regulation…ban any gene therapy trials that involve modification of the subject’s germ line identity, then it would clearly fall within their purposes and values to prevent their use in clinical practice of any procedure with that effect without investigation or trials first having taken place.”
	I believe that this Government are at risk of infringement proceedings being brought against them if these proposals go ahead.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Fiona Bruce: The answer has to be that we—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think Members thought that the hon. Lady had concluded her speech, but she has not. Let us have a courteous hearing for everybody. I call Fiona Bruce.

Fiona Bruce: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	Once we approve this procedure, where will it lead? The answer has to be that we stop here and say, “This is a red line in our country, as in every other country in the world, that we will not cross.” This is the place for that to be said. As MPs, we are accountable to the people of this country.
	The Government’s own consultation in July 2014 received 1,857 responses, of which 1,152 were opposed to the introduction of these techniques. That has been confirmed by ComRes polling last weekend, which showed that more than twice as many people are against these proposals as are in favour—41% of respondents, compared with 21%. A third public survey, being conducted today on The Daily Telegraph website, shows that as of this morning 68% of the public oppose these techniques in principle. Do their concerns not deserve respect from those of us present here?
	The truth is that the Government have not waited for the conclusion of trials, as they should have done, so that this House could make a fully informed decision, and that is wrong. Whether one ultimately approves or disapproves of these proposals, the right procedure on such a profound issue is for the elected representatives of the people of this country to have full information before being rushed into a decision, as we would be today if we voted for these proposals.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) set out her case clearly and I respect her beliefs, but I do not agree with her conclusions. If we took them to the logical point, we would ban any intervention that introduces some part of one person to another. It would mean boycotting blood and organ transfers, simply because—[Interruption.] I listened with courtesy to the hon. Lady and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) will listen to me with courtesy. When these pioneering techniques started, nobody knew the answers for certain. People made judgments—scientific judgments—on the best available evidence, and it turned out that people’s fears were ill-founded.
	The trials that have been undertaken on this work have led the scientific community—a powerful group of scientists with an extraordinary degree of knowledge in this area—to conclude that the risks are small but worth taking because the benefits on the other side of the equation are enormous. In all cases where there are risks, we need to consider the risks as against the benefits. I put it to the House that there are potential benefits for the about 2,500 families affected by mitochondrial disease up and down this nation, and they deserve our support. Of course we have to assess the risks, as we do with all risks, but that has to be done in a rational and balanced way.

Richard Drax: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Everyone in this House wants the best for these families—there is no doubt about that—but it is the speed of the introduction of the regulations that concerns us. As for experimentation, I heard today that no trials are being carried out on primates, which are as close to us as can be. This process has proved successful on mice, but on primates—a standard part of this procedure, apparently—it has not been carried out, and that is interesting.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but there are plenty of occasions when such tests are not carried out. In central Africa we have been testing Ebola vaccines without first testing them on primates, because the benefits outweigh the risks. We are in that position already. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South referred to research undertaken in China 10 years ago. He rightly said that that work took place, but I put it to Members of this House that the ethical and scientific rigour applied to experimentation in the UK far exceeds anything in China 10 years ago. Indeed, the technologies have also moved on to a very high degree since then.

Julian Huppert: Some critics of this approach have pointed out that this country would be the first to go ahead with it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should be
	proud to be leading the world in medical treatments and that, as he says, we can provide some of the best ethical safeguards in the world?

Andrew Miller: The ethical basis on which science is conducted in this country is world leading. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should be immensely proud of the successes—again—of our scientific community in a range of life science disciplines. This one affects a very small group of the population but does so in such a profound way. Although there are issues that need properly regulating, the regulatory structure that we have created does that properly. The Minister was asked about, and indeed mentioned, the issues associated with designer babies. Of course this House would want to impose limits, but we are considering a specific set of regulations about dealing with mitochondrial disease—they do nothing else. I, for one, would not stand here to defend the concept of designer babies and people choosing eye colour and so on. Today, we are dealing purely with those terrible illnesses.

Steven Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Miller: No, as it would not be fair on other people. In case colleagues have not seen them, let me commend the e-mails sent to all Members by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign; Jonathan Kingsley wrote to us all, and the Lily Foundation has written to us all in very powerful language. Those people who have sat and listened to some of the families will understand, and colleagues who have constituents affected by mitochondrial disease will understand the message.
	We are in a society where people are entitled to have their beliefs, and I respect those beliefs; everyone should be entitled to express their opinion. But this is about focusing on the needs of that small part of the population that I mentioned. I urge the House, in coming to a conclusion this afternoon, to think about those families, to focus on their needs and to set aside general beliefs in the overwhelming interest of that small part of the population who have suffered immensely and who have an opportunity at their disposal because of the extraordinary science that has been advanced.

Steven Baker: I approach this subject with a considerable degree of humility, for two reasons. First, I will never forget meeting a family in my constituency whose child suffers from mitochondrial disease; there was both a haunting sorrow in that family and also the hope that if these regulations are passed they will be able to have a child without this problem. Secondly, I am very aware of my own shortcomings in relation to biological science. As a chartered engineer, I am perhaps more competent in the physical sciences, and I do not mind admitting that I had to look up at least a few of the words in the regulations in order to understand them.
	As I have listened to this debate, not only today, but previously, I have wondered whether we have really reflected on how science proceeds, because scientific truth is not established by authority or by democratic vote; it is established, as Karl Popper put it, through “conjecture and refutation”—trial and error. Someone who reads Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” will discover that it is possible for quite
	large bodies of knowledge to be developed with errors in them. When those errors are corrected, the paradigm shifts—that is a term we have all heard. That is how science proceeds, through trial and error. The reality is that there will always be uncertainty in any scientific procedure.
	When the Commons Library summarised the Nuffield Council on Bioethics’ review, the second point mentioned was this:
	“The knowledge about these techniques is uncertain and could remain so for several generations—their use could potentially harm future persons.”
	The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), speaking from the Front Bench, made the point that, broadly, the question before us was whether there was a reason to withhold these techniques from people. If there is a reason, it is that they may do harm to future persons. I will not support the measure because this is inherently uncertain. That uncertainty is an inherent part of science, and it is no good appealing to authority to try to resolve the question, because different authorities will disagree and there is no way to resolve those disagreements apart from through empirical evidence, which we can obtain only by experimenting on humans.

Graham Stringer: The hon. Gentleman is making a typically thoughtful contribution to this important debate. Does he not have to balance that uncertainty, which he points out fairly, with the 100% certainty that the children of mothers with mitochondrial disease will suffer?

Steven Baker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, which is why I began by expressing the humility I feel on this subject as a result of meeting and having had a lengthy conversation with a family who face just that issue. I remind myself, however, that we are dealing here not with a cure for those who have already been born, but with ensuring that those who are subsequently born do not suffer from that disease. If we were discussing a cure for those already living, perhaps the circumstances might be different.

Angela Smith: Is prevention not better than cure?

Steven Baker: Prevention certainly is better than cure, but the question is: at what risk? I simply accept that on the earliest stages of human life there is a space for conscience; we will have different beliefs, some of which will be religious, and it is a matter of conscience. There are noble reasons for disagreeing about that stage and about what is and is not legitimate risk taking with human beings.
	The second point I wish to make is that in the course of this conversation there seems to have been what, at best, I could describe as “semantic sophistry” as to whether or not this process is genetic modification. As always, there is space for debate about the definition of terms, but the germ line is to be modified if these techniques go ahead. The Minister has stated that plainly—

Jane Ellison: indicated assent.

Steven Baker: She nods, and I am grateful. If the germ line is to be modified, to me this is genetic modification. I heard the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)
	give a clear explanation of the separate origins, and he understands the science better than I do. But for me the key thing is not so much where these parts of the DNA identity of a person came from, but where they are now. Each one of us has our own particular DNA identity. This procedure changes only a tiny part of it, but, having changed it, we cannot know what the future consequences will be. I know that families will be affected by the decision, but I have to say, with great sorrow, that, when it comes to human beings, this degree of uncertainty cannot be borne by my conscience and I shall be voting against the regulations.

Frank Dobson: I have a sense of déjà vu, or perhaps déjà entendu. The objections that have been brought out today, and in previous discussions, about mitochondrial disease are identical to those that arose when Louise Brown was brought into this world at Oldham general hospital as a result of the risky work undertaken by Steptoe and Edwards and Jean Purdy. That was a risk that the scientists were willing to take and that Mr and Mrs Brown were willing to take.
	Not long after I became a Member, Enoch Powell proposed a total ban on embryo research. I understand people’s ethical objections to embryo research, but if they object to something on principle, they do not need to add any other references to safety or effectiveness. If someone is opposed to it on principle, they are opposed to it, and I can respect that. When the Warnock report was published, this House had a creditable debate—to those who say that the House of Lords has a better quality of debate, I say that they should read its first debate on the Warnock report, and they might modify their views. All the things that are being said today were being said then, and all the things that were said in the debates about the establishment and development of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority were the same.
	In a previous speech, there were two novelties. One was that Robert Winston was being misquoted as opposing the proposal, which he cannot do any more as he actually wrote a full article in favour of it yesterday. The second was that US experts, some of the most distinguished experts who have written papers on the matter, were against it.

William Cash: rose—

Laurence Robertson: rose—

Frank Dobson: No, I will not give way, because I do not want to take up more than my allocated six minutes.
	The question arises: will it be safe and will it work? The answer is that no one can make any guarantees, but that is the nature of scientific development. The thing to remember is that mitochondrial disease is horrible and that there is no treatment for it. I remind people that the team at Newcastle university did not start off with this riskier novel approach. It has been studying and trying to come up with treatments for mitochondrial disease for the best part of 20 years, and is still doing so now. Some 90% of its work is trying to come up with a treatment. The best that it has managed to come up with after all these years is helping parents cope with
	the horrible symptoms before their children fade away and die. As has already been said, the team has decided that if it cannot come up with a treatment—and it is still trying—it would be better to prevent the disease arising in the first place because prevention is better than cure. That is why I hope the regulations will be passed and handed over to the HFEA. Members should realise that it is a credit to this country and to this House that the HFEA was established. We must find a middle way between the free-for-all, which a few nutters want, and the total ban, which some others want because they are opposed to embryo research on principle.
	The system that has been established is well regulated through the HFEA. Despite all the predictions to the contrary, there has not been a single scandal in all the time that the HFEA has been in existence. There has been no sign of a slippery slope. These people with great reputations at Newcastle think the time is right to take risks and to risk their reputations—

Fiona Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Frank Dobson: No, I shall not. Those people are taking risks, because if the treatment does not work, there will be those who will gloat—even, I am sad to say, Members in this Chamber. The parents are also willing to take the risks. Parents with children do not want this to happen again, and we have the opportunity to do something about it. The results are uncertain, but that is in the nature of both medicine and science. We cannot guarantee that it will work, but the people most involved in the matter and all the scientific advisory bodies in this country think that it will work, and we should take note of what they say.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The time limit on Back-Bench speeches is now reduced with immediate effect to four minutes.

John Hemming: This is a difficult issue for everybody. I have a real difficulty with this, which is that I cannot see the difference between modifying mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA. Both are inherited, and both can prevent inherited diseases. If we agree to this as a process, we are, in essence, potentially agreeing to swapping a pair of chromosomes—[Interruption.] I know that we are not agreeing to it in law, but in practice the same arguments can be used to justify—

Andrew Bridgen: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that mitochondrial DNA only codes the mitochondria, which were undoubtedly alien DNA to the human cells, and actually were probably bacteria that are now symbiotically living within us.

John Hemming: They remain—

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Hemming: I will not take lots of interventions because it would damage the debate. They remain inherited, and, in essence, we face the same difficulty. My concern is a legalistic one, which is that we are moving away from a society in which we value people as people to
	one where we start looking at people in terms of what categories they fall into and things such as that. To that extent, I cannot back the motion today, particularly as it is being pushed through in such a rush.

Mr Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is finished, I call Mr Robert Flello.

Robert Flello: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) almost caught me napping.
	It would be ridiculous to suggest that anybody in this House does not want a cure for mitochondrial disease; it is a horrible disease. But if we understood properly how mitochondrial DNA worked, we might find ourselves closer to finding a cure for that disease. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said that we had heard all these arguments before. Well, yes, we did hear an argument before. It was back in 2007 when Members were marched through the Lobby to support the human-animal hybrid legislation. That legislation was going to solve numerous problems, and some Members said, “How could anybody dare to object to such legislation?” But what has happened to that legislation, that panacea? Well, nobody can get a grant for that work now because it has been proved that it does not work. All the concerns, hopes and heartache of the time got us nowhere. I really fear for the families today. If this motion passes today and it does become law, those families, who are, understandably, pinning everything on it, will be tragically let down.

Julian Huppert: rose—

Robert Flello: I will take an intervention shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) mentioned the Zhang study. That study was not considered by the HFEA. Even if we said that Chinese medicine is terrible and that 10 years ago it was irrelevant and not ethical, the HFEA should still have considered it, but it did not. A number of Members have claimed that mitochondrial donation is like blood transfusion—nothing more than that. Well, no it is not like that. It is modifying the human germ line. As the HFEA has said, maternal spindle transfer is genetic modification of the egg and pronuclear transfer is genetic modification of the embryo. Think about it, colleagues. Why are we in the Chamber today to discuss this procedure if it is not genetic modification? If changing the germ line is not genetic modification, we do not need the statutory instrument. The HFEA could get on with it. It has therefore answered itself.

Julian Huppert: I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said about hope, and he is right that we do not know how this will play out. There might be people who have hope who will not succeed. What I cannot understand is why he is saying that to avoid people having their hopes dashed later, we should dash them today.

Robert Flello: It is simply that this legislation will open up research that is illegal, as I shall describe in a moment. I also think there are greater concerns about generations down the line.
	The EU clinical trials directive, which applies to all clinical work, states:
	“No gene therapy trials may be carried out that result in modification to the subject’s germline genetic identity.”
	The HFEA itself has said that this procedure does. In the legal opinion on the regulations, Lord Brennan QC has said that they are caught by the directive and that they are
	“likely to be in breach of EU law”
	on clinical trials.
	The Department of Health examined the legal opinion but rejected it, saying that the licence will not be granted for clinical trial but for treatment and therefore will not be caught by that law. Apparently, this is not about clinical trials and furthering the science but about going straight for treatment.
	Lord Brennan’s opinion anticipated that. He set out the relevant paragraphs from the 2011 report on safety from the review panel set up by the Secretary of State to monitor the procedures to the HFEA, which said:
	“Once assessed as safe to use in clinical practice, the panel strongly recommends that permission is sought from the parents of the children born from MST and PNT to be followed up for an extensive period”
	and that such permission should be sought from the children themselves once they are old enough. In the case of females, that should ideally be to the next generation. Those recommendations should also apply to pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for mitochondrial DNA genetic disease.

Peter Bone: Why, in the hon. Gentleman’s opinion, are the Government trying to rush this through?

Robert Flello: I think they are doing that because the legislation on the EU clinical trials directive will be tightened up even more next year.
	Until knowledge has built up that says otherwise, the panel recommends that any female born following MST or PNT should be advised, when old enough, that she herself might be at risk of having a child with a significant level of mutant mitochondrial DNA. The HFEA is putting that child and, if they are female, subsequent generations at risk.
	Mr Speaker, I have only a minute left but my speech would cover more than that time. It is a ridiculous nonsense to try to ram through this statutory instrument in no time at all. This is not about whether we should be helping families afflicted by this appalling disease but about saying we should get things right. We should ensure that this is done properly, with proper parliamentary scrutiny. The ultimate role of Government is to protect the safety of the citizens of this country and the regulations do not do that. They open the gates to a procedure that is completely untested, with no pre-clinical trials or clinical trials. The regulations talk about going straight to treatment and that has all been done so that the Department of Health can wangle its way around the legislation, or so it thinks. This is terrible. It is not good for the families with this chronic, horrible disease. We need proper and considered research. If these regulations were on genetically modified crops, we would all be up in arms. That is what is happening here.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I understand the widespread unhappiness about the time constraints, but we are where we are. I simply point out that Members are not obliged to take their full four minutes if they do not wish to do so.

David Willetts: I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House for missing the opening speech in the debate. Nevertheless, I was keen to speak because I think that the proposals before us today would tackle a real human need. There are parents who are currently bringing into the world children with a horrible disease and the suffering is made more acute by the fact that now, for the first time, those prospective parents know that they could be doing this procedure and they therefore face the dilemma of whether or not to have children.
	I realise that there are important objections. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) put forward the ethical objection. I fully understand the fact that our benefit from this treatment does not of itself overcome the ethical issues, which are crucial. The red line to which she referred is, I think, a red line over which we have designer babies and change the DNA that makes the character of a person. I am persuaded by the scientific evidence that the mitochondria is not part of the core DNA that does that. In the previous debates and the previous legislation, it was absolutely clear that the red line that the House was trying to set was one that stopped the changing of human nature, and we do not cross it today.

Edward Leigh: But it can be inherited.

David Willetts: It is absolutely true that mitochondria can be inherited through the mother, but it does not change the character of the baby.
	Secondly, let me consider the health and safety objection. Sometimes that objection is being used as a cover for what is really an underlying objection in principle. The scientists say, with typical caution and care, that there is no evidence that this is unsafe. It is true that nobody can have 100% certainty about that, but there have been 15 years of research and seven years of scrutiny, including by various scientific bodies and ones promoted under this Government, and so far no one has been able to come up with a concrete and powerful objection that suggests that the process is unsafe. It is right for us today to be considering moving on to the next step.

Cheryl Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Willetts: Let me make some progress, as others want to speak.
	Thirdly, I hear a rejection on the grounds that we are somehow rushing because we are going to be first. People ask, why us? Why now? Why in Britain? I must say, having had the privilege of serving as the Minister responsible for science, that we are first because we have world-leading research in this area. We should be proud of the fact that it is in British labs and British universities that this fundamental research is happening. It was in our country that the structure of DNA was discovered
	and I had the privilege of going to the Nobel prize ceremony for Robert Edwards, who won the Nobel prize for his work on IVF, which would properly not have passed through the levels of scrutiny we require of research today.
	That brings me to my fourth and final point. What is our role in this Chamber today, faced with this very difficult question? We must make a judgment on whether any ethical issues stand in the way of tackling a clear human need. We are not agreeing that any specific programme of treatment should be licensed or should go ahead. We are very fortunate in this country to have a regulatory structure that is different from that in the US. In the US, if Congress voted for such legislation to go ahead, that would be the end of the matter. If we vote for the regulations today, as I hope that we will, we are saying that the HFEA can decide whether or not to license specific uses of mitochondrial DNA donation after it has assessed all the risks. There is that further safeguard. All we are doing is saying we require it to make that assessment and we are not objecting in principle. My sense of the mood of this House is that there are not many people who object in principle.

Andrew Bridgen: We yearn for Back-Bench debates and free votes and we have one today. However, I detect that those who perhaps have not studied the issue are going for the status quo, saying that there has not been enough time. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be disappointing if the regulations were not passed today because people had not done their research? It is rather like the case for a student who has not done his revision—the exam is always too soon.

David Willetts: We all know the feeling.
	One thing we are proud of in this country and, I hope, on both sides of the House is our innovation, research and enterprise, provided that the risks are clearly understood and regulation is in place. I hope that we will support innovation, particularly innovation that tackles a clear human need.
	We are not saying that this must go ahead today. We are saying that we trust a body to consider licensing it with very strict requirements, and on that basis I hope that the House will support this admirable measure.

Liz McInnes: As we have heard, mitochondrial DNA makes up a tiny proportion of our total DNA. Unlike nuclear DNA, it does not pass on any personal attributes; it is purely involved in the chemistry of energy production. That is why, when there is a defect in mitochondrial DNA, it tends to affect organs that require a high amount of energy, such as the heart, muscles, brain and liver. All of our mitochondria are inherited from the egg and, as we have heard, researchers have worked on techniques to replace faulty mitochondria using those from a healthy donor. To refer to that donor as a third parent, as some have, is something of a misnomer. There are 37 genes in mitochondrial DNA, which is less than 0.01% of our total DNA. Altering the mitochondria will not alter a child’s characteristics inherited from its biological parents, but it may provide a way to prevent a debilitating and sometimes fatal disease.

Fiona Bruce: I want to pick up on the point the hon. Lady makes about mitochondria not affecting characteristics. The Government’s own consultation document acknowledged that diverse characteristics are associated with mitochondria, including learning disabilities, neurological problems and dementia, and that every person’s symptoms are different. Is there not an insurmountable contradiction in saying that this is just like changing a battery if on the one hand one is saying that the aim is to prevent damage to those characteristics, but on the other hand one is saying that the techniques will not affect them at all?

Liz McInnes: I did not say it was just like changing a battery. In fact, I try to avoid using that terminology. The hon. Lady mentions learning disabilities, but as I just said, the organs affected the most by mitochondrial disorders are organs that require a large amount of energy, such as the brain, so that comes as no surprise to me.
	Allegations have been made that the techniques are not safe.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Liz McInnes: No, I will not, because I need to make progress and let other people speak.
	Last night, it was my privilege to attend the debate on the safety and ethics of this technique and to hear Professor Doug Turnbull, who leads the research team at Newcastle university, talk about the 15 years of work done by his team and the extensive safety checks that have taken place during those years. In the Chinese case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) referred, the treatment was carried out by an American clinician on a single patient in China. The patient became pregnant with triplets, one of whom was aborted and the other two were born prematurely and died. Importantly, the clinician attributed the outcome entirely to multiple pregnancy and obstetric complications, not to the method of conception. I do not accept that that one case represents a proper clinical trial.
	What we have to remember is that mitochondrial disease is a life-limiting debilitating disease, causing severe distress to parents and their affected children. We have here a technique with the ability to alleviate their suffering and to allow affected parents the chance to have a healthy child who is genetically related to them in all aspects apart from a tiny proportion of mitochondrial DNA. The spectre of designer babies can be dismissed. There is no possibility in using this technique of being able to select certain characteristics. It will simply allow mitochondria to function normally and for the child to be free of mitochondrial disease.

Fiona Bruce: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Liz McInnes: I will not, no.
	In safety, the UK has a robust regulatory framework. A vote in favour of the motion will not in itself open the way for mitochondrial donation to be used in clinics. It will simply enable the HFEA to consider each individual family’s request for treatment on a case-by-case basis,
	taking expert scientific and medical advice and licensing the procedure only if the evidence shows that that is appropriate.
	I am lucky enough to have worked at the Royal Oldham hospital, where the first IVF baby, Louise Brown, was born. When IVF was first introduced, there was no certainty that it was completely safe. Only after the first babies were born using the technique could scientists be completely reassured that their detailed research had led to the birth of healthy babies, but to this day research continues on IVF, just as more research must be done on mitochondrial transfer. That is the nature of science: it is a continuous process; it does not stand still.
	For families affected by mitochondrial disease, this research has given them new hope that they may at last have the chance to bear a healthy child of their own. Last night I heard from a woman who suffered from mitochondrial disease, which had also affected her mother. That young woman had taken a considered decision not to have her own children, for fear of passing on the condition. The opportunity to have this treatment presents her and many other women in that situation with new hope. The science is there to alleviate the suffering of affected families, and in my opinion it would be unethical to withhold this treatment. I urge the House to approve the regulations.

Edward Leigh: Everybody who is following this debate will of course have the most profound sympathy for families who are affected by these appalling diseases, and I quite understand why so many colleagues want to vote for the regulations to lessen human suffering, but I am afraid that I will oppose the regulations. I do so on three grounds: ethics, safety and the importance of parliamentary procedure.
	On the first, ethics, I think what we are considering is a new step. It will affect the germ line. Mitochondria is inherited; it is not just another organ of the body. What is proposed is a fatal and important step. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) asked, where do we stop? Given the nature of the human condition, these appalling diseases, sadly, will occur, but where do we stop? What further modifications will we make?
	My second ground for opposing the regulations is safety. Under European conventions and regulations and so on, we should have full clinical trials and the scientific community should be united on aspects of safety, which it is not. Unfortunately, we will be the first state in the world to authorise the technique, and in that sense, in bioethical terms, we will be in a unique position. We should ask ourselves why no other state—not in the EU, not the US, not yet anybody—thinks that this is proved to be absolutely safe.
	As for the third reason for my opposition, it has been said that this is not a final decision, and that we are just handing it over to the HFEA, but this is the final decision; it is a monumental decision. For the first time, Parliament is saying that we authorise people to affect mitochondrial DNA. That is a monumental decision. This will now happen and colleagues who vote for the regulations must appreciate that.
	For those three reasons—on ethical grounds, on safety grounds and on procedural grounds, I will vote against the regulations.

Jim Shannon: I hold the Minister in the utmost respect, but I feel greatly aggrieved that we are discussing this matter today in the House and that the Government are pushing forward with legislation on a process that I believe is unethical and unproven.
	When assessing the reports published by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, we must take into account the point that the expert panel comprises a small group of scientists convened by the HFEA. Hearing the tone of today’s debate, one could be forgiven for thinking that they represent world scientific opinion. I do not want the House to be hoodwinked into thinking that there is a consensus on this issue, because there certainly is not. In fact, numerous world-leading scientists have been at pains to express their concerns about the proposals.
	They include Professor David Keefe of New York university medical centre, himself a pioneer of spindle transfer techniques, who said:
	“the application of the…techniques…represent intriguing advances of earlier work, but displays of technical virtuosity should not blind us to potential hazards.”
	He explains that his research group moved away from these procedures because
	“vexing concerns linger about the safety of mitochondrial replacement”.
	He is far from alone. Stem-cell scientist Professor Paul Knoepfler is so concerned that he wrote an open letter to Parliament urging caution on the ground that rushing ahead would damage the reputation of science as a whole. He concluded:
	“Overall, the UK would most likely be making an historic mistake by allowing 3-parent technology to proceed in the near future. Please wait on this critical decision for the additional information needed to make a wise choice in the long run.”
	Clearly, we need time. Australian expert Professor Justin St John calls for more tests in non-human primates, so that we better understand the possible effects of the techniques. He says:
	“As well as analysing foetal development in a non-human primate model, it is essential to analyse offspring to determine that no abnormalities appear at least during early life”.
	None of those figures objects to the ethics of the techniques. Their objections are based purely on the science. Lest we think that they are lone voices, it must be remembered that the United States Food and Drug Administration considered the techniques last year and decided that there was not enough preclinical evidence to justify proceeding. I understand that the same body has reopened the debate and has insisted that it will be at least two yeas before it is ready to make a judgment.
	In that context, I find it extraordinary that the Government have not waited for the conclusion of the preclinical safety experiments that the HFEA said should be conducted before proceeding.

William McCrea: In her opening speech the Minister mentioned that the devolved Administrations had been kept abreast of these proposals. I wanted to intervene to
	ask her whether the regulations will apply in Northern Ireland if they are passed in this House. That is an important question to which an answer is needed.

Jim Shannon: I am glad my hon. Friend raised that point.
	We cannot have a real debate today without the evidence. New Scientist, typically a champion of progress in all areas of research, warned of lack of understanding of the links between mitochondria and nuclear DNA. The fact is that the procedures for creating children are so controversial that no other country makes legal provision for them. The Council of Europe convention on biomedicine expressly prohibited them. The fact that experiments recommended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority itself have not been concluded, written up and peer reviewed raises extensive safety concerns. Yet we as parliamentarians are asked to make a decision today without having all the clinical evidence before us.
	In the pre-clinical tests that have been carried out, one of the techniques was tried in humans and resulted in three foetal deaths. The obligations in international law, specifically the European directive on clinical trials—

Robert Flello: On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Shannon: I am sorry, I cannot give way. I do not have enough time.
	The legal opinion of the Labour QC, Lord Brennan, seemed to suggest that the Government will not bother with clinical trials. That seems extraordinary and will come as a shock to many who spoke in favour in the debate on 1 September. My colleague, Lord Morrow, spoke to the Northern Ireland Attorney-General about the attempt of the Department of Health to argue in the response to Brennan that these regulations are not caught by the clinical trials directive, on the basis that the intention is to skip clinical trials. The Attorney-General told Lord Morrow that in his opinion the Department of Health is wrong and the regulations do indeed contradict the clinical trials directive. If the regulations go through today, they will be contradictory to international law as well. The same point was made by 44 Members of the European Parliament. I urge the House to vote against the regulations.

Paul Burstow: Mitochondrial disease shortens lives, causes serious disability and leaves heartache in its wake. Now, thanks to the world-class research led from the university of Newcastle, we have the potential of innovation in IVF that could make a real difference for thousands of families in this country.
	We have not arrived at this moment of decision in a rush. This House made provision in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 for regulations to be brought to this House
	“to prevent the transmission of serious mitochondrial disease”.
	Since those debates there has been a lengthy process to consider the benefits, the risks, the ethical issues and public consent. All these matters should be carefully
	considered. What all this work has revealed is broad public, ethical and scientific support for approving mitochondrial donation.
	Clearly, safety is paramount. That is why the procedure has been scrutinised on three separate occasions by independent panels of experts. No evidence has been found to suggest that these techniques are unsafe. Are they ethical? Mitochondrial donation does not alter the essential personal characteristics or traits. It gives the gift of freedom from mitochondrial disease. It does not confer on a third person the parenthood that has been claimed in this debate. It is not about a third parent.
	I have received many e-mails and letters from constituents on both sides of the argument, and I understand and respect those who have principled objections to the approach. I was struck by what the Right Rev. Dr Lee Rayfield and the Rev. Dr McCarthy said in a recent letter to The Guardian:
	“The HFEA has made clear that even if parliament were to permit these two techniques, no licences would be issued until there was sufficient assurance from expert reviewers that mitochondrial donation is ‘not unsafe’”.
	For me, that assurance—

David Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Burstow: No, I must not. We must make progress.
	That assurance from the HFEA is important. It means that although today is an important milestone in addressing mitochondrial disease, it is not the end. I was struck by what the Church of England said in its response to the HFEA’s consultation. The Church of England is not opposed in principle to these proposals. Its opposition is not absolute. It makes it clear that it is supportive in principle. As a Christian, I take heart from that.
	For myself, I am persuaded that we make our decision today with the benefit of a thorough process, including thorough parliamentary scrutiny, and we have a robust regulatory framework. Today’s vote does not open the doors to mitochondrial donation as a matter of routine in clinics. Rather, we grant the HFEA the responsibility to consider on a case-by-case basis and weigh the expert scientific and medical advice. On every occasion safety and efficacy will be considered as a consequence of the regulations—the very concern that many hon. Members have cited as their reason for objecting to these proposals. I hope hon. Members will support them.
	The Minister was right. This is about light at the end of the tunnel for thousands of families in this country. It is about the prospect of life lived, life realised, and about the potential opportunity to live.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, it is proper that the Minister should have five minutes to respond. One last contribution, very pithily—Mr David Burrowes.

David Burrowes: We are here today to consider the regulations. The explanatory note says that the debate gives Parliament the opportunity to consider whether the new techniques are safe enough
	for use in a treatment setting. I said in a point of order at the start of the debate that I did not believe that we had had sufficient opportunity to make that decision today—sufficient opportunity, yes, to consider the passionate views of those mothers about whom we have heard today, who are at risk of passing a serious disease to their children, and also to consider on behalf of the country the prospect of our being world leaders in permitting human germ-line genetic modification. I say “genetic modification” because that is what it is. We need a clear and honest debate.
	A number of scientists have accused the Government of dishonesty for trying to redefine what we are here for today, which is to debate whether to permit genetic modification. Only last week, the United States Institute of Medicine said that what we are discussing today are
	“assisted reproductive methods involving genetic modification of eggs and zygotes for the prevention of mitochondrial disease.”
	The HFEA, too, accepted honestly on its website that whether we go for PNT or MST, they are both genetic modification.
	I do not know how many Members have read the regulations. This is not a wide debate about mitochondrial donation or about the principle. It is specifically about the regulations. They make it clear that the procedures entail a cell nuclear transfer, which alters the nuclear DNA in the egg that the DNA is transferred into. It is clear that mitochondrial DNA makes up part of the human genetic code. This technology that we are debating modifies that code by separating nuclear mitochondrial DNA. Regulations 4 and 7 make it clear that this is a complete transfer of nuclear DNA into the donor’s egg or embryo. The Government should admit that the interaction between mitochondria and nuclear material is not clear. We cannot say with certainty that these techniques will not affect the characteristics of children.
	In conclusion, the Government said in their consultation response that this is about providing greater understanding of the ways in which mitochondrial DNA mutations are passed down from mother to child. In many ways it is an experiment, or a wider trial, and it is a trial that I do not think we should go ahead with. It is unprecedented in the world. Some might say that it is leading the pack, and others might say that it is leaving us out on a limb. Ethically, it breaks international norms. Legally, we have heard about the directive. With regard to safety, the tests are not yet complete. Members might think “Not yet” or “No”. Either way, please vote against the motion.

Jane Ellison: I will try to touch on some of the points raised in this high-quality debate, in which views have been expressed on all sides of the argument. I will deal first with the technical questions. I really cannot add to the excellent explanation that the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) gave of the Zhang et al study from China. She was precisely right and explained it very well.
	In answer to an earlier question, we are satisfied that regulations are necessary and that they are not ultra vires. The clinical trials directive is not relevant in this context. It is part of a suite of EU measures that set out
	common rules across Europe to ensure the free movement of safe medicines in the EU. Mitochondrial donation is not a medicine, so those provisions do not apply. The follow-up assessment of the treatment’s efficacy is part of good clinical practice.

William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jane Ellison: I am afraid that I cannot, because my role now is to respond to the points that have already been made.
	On international support, Britain does not stand alone, as some Members have suggested. The Department of Health has recently received a lot of correspondence from researchers and scientists in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Japan, Hong Kong and two states in Australia, all indicating support for UK advances on mitochondrial donation. It is also important to note that nobody is saying that scientists are of one voice or one mind on the issue, but the House should note that the overall weight of international scientific opinion is very much in favour of these techniques, and they have been looked at exhaustively.
	Following the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), I have today spoken with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, who speaks for the Church of England on ethical matters in the other place, and with the Rev. Dr Brendan McCarthy, the Church’s national adviser on medical ethics, and they have told me that I can confirm that the Church is not opposed in principle to mitochondrial donation.
	We have discussed germ-line therapy, with Members disputing definitions on genetic modification. The HFEA agrees that these techniques are germ-line therapy, but it has also agreed with the Government’s working definition that mitochondrial donation is not genetic modification; but I accept that others will have a different view, because there is no international or universally accepted definition.
	With regard to the techniques being successfully performed in non-human primates, I can confirm that maternal spindle transfer is a technique developed in the US that has been performed successfully in non-human primates. Lord Brennan’s comments on the regulations were made to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which did not draw any special attention to his remarks. In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), the regulations will not prevent mitochondrial disease caused by faults in nuclear DNA; the techniques make no alteration to nuclear DNA.
	It is really important, in the seconds remaining, to point out for those Members who have said that we are rushing, and that it is open season on all these things, that that is not true. It is defined in primary legislation that the regulations can apply only to serious mitochondrial disease. There is no slippery slope. I looked back at the debates in the House on IVF all those years ago, when some were worried about a slippery slope, and all the safeguards are still in place more than two decades later. I think we can give the House confidence that we have considered this very carefully and that there is enough information. As I have said before, this is a bold step for Parliament to make, but it is a considered and informed one. We have world-leading science set in a well respected
	regulatory regime. For many families affected, this is indeed the light at the end of a dark tunnel. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 382, Noes 128.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be approved.

Robert Flello: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have just had a 90-minute debate during which a number of right hon. and hon. Members from across the Chamber and with different views had to rush through their speeches. We had people putting on the record views—sometimes genuinely
	held views although not necessarily correct—that nobody was able to challenge. Some hon. Members did not even have the chance to contribute to the debate.
	Could you confirm, Mr Speaker, that there were indeed hon. Members who indicated that they would have liked to speak? Secondly, do you think it right that we have had a 90-minute rush and will now have three hours on a Backbench Business Committee motion?

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I confirm that two hon. Members who wished to speak were unable to do so. I expressed sympathy at the start of the debate for the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) who would have preferred a longer allocation of time, but I must operate within the rules and procedures of the House. It is also fair to emphasise that 12 Back-Bench Members representing different viewpoints were called. That is the factual answer.
	The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) invites my view as to the propriety or otherwise of this matter, and I can say only that we have operated entirely in accordance with procedure. There has been no impropriety and nothing disorderly. I understand that some people are discontented, but I hope people will not take offence if I say that to a degree, I think there will always be people who are discontented. It is difficult to get unanimity on these matters, either on the merits of the issue or on the procedure. However, I think we have done our best, and people have done their best today to help each other, which is worthy of note.

Jim Shannon: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is obviously of great concern to many Members of the House that only 90 minutes was allocated for that debate, and you outlined at the beginning of the debate that the Minister could control that. What advice would you give to Back Benchers who want to ensure that in future, if there are debates about such enormous change for the whole United Kingdom, we can ensure a three-hour debate rather than a 90-minute debate?

Mr Speaker: I am always happy to offer my advice to the hon. Gentleman, but whether he takes it or not is entirely up to him. The short answer is twofold. The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous attender of debates—indeed, I have often wondered if he sleeps here overnight because he is invariably present in the Chamber at all times and for every Adjournment debate. First, he should always turn up at business questions when he can raise such matters with the Leader of the House. Secondly, if he feels that Back Benchers should have a greater say in the allocation of time on matters of this kind, he might want to join forces with other hon. Members who are championing the creation of a House business committee. That was to be introduced by the third year of this Parliament, but I think it momentarily slipped the Government’s memory and therefore has not happened. It might happen in the next Parliament, however, and I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman might be a cheerleader for it. We will leave it there.

William McCrea: rose—

Mr Speaker: I will come to the hon. Gentleman—how could I not?—but first of all, I will take the point of order from Sir Paul Beresford.

Paul Beresford: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman that introduced the point of order has conveniently forgotten that he spoke in the Back-Bench debate on just this cause, as it is in his case. He was one of the leading Members at that debate.

Mr Speaker: Well, that was—dare I say it?—a meaty point of order, or even a toothy one, but it was certainly a useful point of order and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We must not delay indefinitely, but we must take Dr McCrea.

William McCrea: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There is general dismay among many Members, and I am sure among our constituents, that we could get only 90 minutes in this House to debate a decision of such magnitude, and hand it over to others to take the decision forward, without parliamentarians having the final say, and yet we have three hours on the next motion, a general debate on rural phone and broadband connectivity. Only one Northern Ireland Member was able to speak, and he had to rush through his speech, and yet we find out that the legislation applies equally to Northern Ireland, where a devolved Government cannot stop it, as in other regions of the United Kingdom.

Mr Speaker: I always listen to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope to every Member, with courtesy. I hope he will not take offence when I say that that point was made in the course of the debate. If the Leader of the House wants to respond, he can, but we must operate in accordance with our rules. Members would rightly complain if we did not or if I did not.
	We will have to leave it there for today. I thank all hon. Members both for their contributions to the debate, and of course for their points of order. I thank the Minister for her courtesy and consideration of other Members in terms of her own taking up of time.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Rating and Valuation

That the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Order 2015, dated 7 January 2015, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7 January, be approved.—(Damian Hinds.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft Shared Parental Leave and Leave Curtailment (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.—(Damian Hinds.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Electricity

That the draft Warm Home Discount (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.—(Damian Hinds.)
	Question agreed to.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Rural Phone and Broadband Connectivity

[Relevant documents: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2013-14, Rural Communities(HC 602); and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2014-15, Rural broadbandand digital-only services (HC 834)]

Jesse Norman: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered rural phone and broadband connectivity.
	Whatever the pros and cons of the argument on the length of the previous debate, on which views are widely held, shared and disputed, it is entirely appropriate that we should have a three-hour debate on rural phone and broadband connectivity, which is important to many people in this country. The debate follows one in Westminster Hall on 6 January. That debate was only 30 minutes long, but the Minister and I took 11 interventions. I am delighted by the turnout of colleagues on both sides of the House in the Chamber today. I specifically thank the Backbench Business Committee for its support in allowing us this time. I pay tribute to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for its excellent reports on rural communities, which was published last year, and on rural broadband and digital-only services, which was published just this morning.
	Before Christmas, I surveyed more than 1,100 people living and working in my constituency in Herefordshire on mobile not spots. The overwhelming majority felt that that was a serious or very serious concern to them. Local businesses feel exactly the same way. In one recent survey in Herefordshire, almost 98% of local business responded to say that they had specific problems with mobile coverage.

Mark Field: My hon. Friend will appreciate that my seat is anything but rural, but the self-same problems of not spots relating to broadband connectivity affect even our biggest cities. As many will recognise from complaints by their staff, that applies even here in the Palace of Westminster in this part of SW1. I accept that this is a rural debate, but the issue affects the whole of the UK.

Jesse Norman: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making the very important point that while these are especially difficult issues in rural areas, they are not confined to them. If it is possible to have a problem with mobile connectivity in SW1, I invite him to consider what it is like in HR1.
	The issue is not merely bad mobile and broadband coverage, but the compounded effect of both, especially on isolated communities in rural areas such as my own. To take just one example, Vodafone recently acknowledged to me that it has only 55% coverage for 3G mobile data services in Herefordshire. Is it any wonder that bad connectivity is such a source of continuing frustration?

Graham Stuart: I do not mean to trump my hon. Friend, but I met Vodafone last week and its current 3G coverage in my
	constituency is just over 20%. The good news is that thanks to the Government announcement of additional funding, it plans to reach 99% by the end of 2017.

Jesse Norman: I invite colleagues across the House to engage in our new sport: the four Yorkshiremen of mobile coverage. If anyone can beat my hon. Friend’s figures, he or she is welcome to intervene.
	In the previous debate, I focused on the basic unfairness of bad coverage and connectivity, and on its disastrous economic and social effect. I highlighted the situation at Kingstone surgery, which had such a bad signal that without urgent repairs it was going to be unable to upgrade its software, potentially affecting 4,200 patients in a matter of weeks. I have since spoken to Herefordshire council and met BT again. I am delighted to inform the House that obstacles have been overcome and that the surgery is scheduled to receive a fast broadband service on 18 February, just in time for its upgrade.

Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend understand the frustration of the residents of Gisburn and of Councillor Richard Sherras? The farmers who live in the small rural village of Gisburn have been told to diversify—bed and breakfasts, working from home and so on—but broadband connectivity is so bad that the chances of even watching something on BBC iPlayer is non-existent, never mind trying to run a business. Indeed, a number of farmers are expected to do their returns online, which is impossible in Gisburn.

Jesse Norman: Councillor Richard Sherras is rarely far from my thoughts. My hon. Friend’s point is illustrated perfectly by a business in Blakemere in my constituency with the wonderful name of Wiggly Wigglers. Wiggly Wigglers was set up 25 years ago in 1990 by fantastic local dynamo Heather Gorringe. It has become an award-winning example of local entrepreneurship. It began with composting worms and garden products, and has now diversified into flower delivery. It has 11 employees, nine of whom are women. It is a perfect example of the kind of higher value-added rural business that constituencies in rural areas across the country seek to emulate, but it is totally reliant on online sales. Blakemere is a village of 63 people. In Heather’s words:
	“Our other services are pretty rubbish…A bus goes by once a day, our rubbish is collected once a fortnight, our roads are full of potholes, our train services impossible.”
	Last year, the B road was cut off for a month and one day, and her husband Phil pulled out 39 cars and other vehicles from a chest-high flood. This is the reality of rural broadband compared with other services, and their broadband service has got steadily worse over the past few years, not better.

Robert Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important debate to the House. He is highlighting how crucial it is for rural businesses and farmers to have good connectivity, but another important message is that good connectivity reduces the pressure on the road network, because people can work from home and not overstretch the commuter roads. The roads around Aberdeen, for example, are already overstretched.

Jesse Norman: That is an important point. In Herefordshire, we certainly suffer from a lack of connectivity, both road and mobile, so the hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

David Rutley: Characteristically, my hon. Friend is making an impassioned speech on behalf of rural communities. We are fortunate in Macclesfield in that some communities have received broadband in recent years, but we now need to get to the isolated villages—places such as Wincle, Wildboarclough and Kettleshulme. One thing that has not come out in his fantastic speech so far is that this affects not just businesses but school children trying to do their homework. We have to ensure that whole families and communities, not just businesses, can access the services they need.

Jesse Norman: That is absolutely right. We are looking at a concatenation of problems, economic and social, across all age groups.

Richard Drax: I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend’s passionate speech. May I add culture to the list of things that are missing out? In Kimmeridge, a remote part of South Dorset, they will be building, with lottery money, a new museum for fossils collected over 30 years by Mr Steve Etches MBE. They were promised broadband for this new, all-singing, all-dancing museum in 2016, but they have now been told that they are not going to get it. The effect on this small community is devastating.

Jesse Norman: I am sorry to hear the case my hon. Friend describes, but it is emblematic of a much wider problem. I certainly share his view that culture should be added to the list of deficits created by lack of coverage.

Cheryl Gillan: May I say how supportive I am of my hon. Friend in bringing this debate to the House? Does he agree that there are other problems, such as those experienced in my constituency? In particular, we have been told that it is not commercially viable to upgrade the Great Missenden cabinet 11 to superfast broadband. Also, Connected Counties told us that cabinet 6 in Beaconsfield would be upgraded, but although we started inquiries in the middle of last year, it is not expected to deliver until the end of this year. Surely it is terrible for people to have to wait that long.

Jesse Norman: There is many a slip between cup and installation of rural cabinet. I know that the Minister will have those boxes firmly in his mind when he responds.

Bill Wiggin: One of the saddest stories I have heard from my constituents in Fownhope is that on Monday mornings they get texts from their children’s schools telling them what matches they should have turned up to on the previous Saturday. It is the failure to provide broadband and a mobile phone signal that is causing the greatest difficulties in my constituency. I hope the Minister will keep the pressure on BT. It is delaying the connections that would enable the use of other types of telephone signal in the absence of sufficient broadband width on which companies could base their rural solutions.

Jesse Norman: My hon. Friend is right to focus on the combined effect of lack of mobile and broadband connectivity.
	It is testimony to the importance of this debate that the House is so full, especially on the Government side of the argument. I am delighted that the Minister, who is not yet the Samson Agonistes of his Department, has retained his beard for this important debate. We must pray he never loses it and, in particular, that it confers the strength required to see this vital project through to its natural conclusion—and certainly that if he does lose it, he does not lose it to the mobile operators.
	Responding to my debate on 6 January, the Minister stressed the huge investment in and the tremendous progress the Government are making on broadband and superfast broadband, and on improving mobile communications. He is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to him and the Secretary of State, but he acknowledged that there were still issues—how could there not be—with implementation, and it is on implementation that I believe this debate should focus. I shall pick three key areas of implementation.
	The first concerns partial mobile not spots, about which so many Members have spoken. I welcome the agreement recently reached between the Government and the mobile network operators, but it would be helpful to have some detail from the Minister on what specific steps he is taking to ensure that areas with multiple communications problems—of the kind highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) that also exist in my constituency—can be prioritised for improved coverage.
	The Government also need to focus on the worst-hit areas and not merely allow the operators to target the easy wins. If I may, I will tentatively offer a suggestion. Perhaps the Government might consider initiating or promoting a means by which rural communities could petition their councils for mobile services as a signal of interest to the operators and as a trigger for a fast track through the planning process. We need that kind of change if we are to get adequate roll-out to some of the more remote areas.

Karen Lumley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not acceptable for Mr Washington of the Lenches in Redditch to have less than 2 megabits to run his business?

Jesse Norman: One can only hope, depending on his business, that once the upgrade goes through, Mr Washington will have considerably more than 2 megabits—enough to allow him not merely to run his current business, but to expand it into all kinds of other value-added areas.
	My second area of focus concerns the mobile infrastructure project. The situation, it is fair to say, has, after initially high hopes, become disappointing and frustrating. When the sites to benefit from the mobile infrastructure project were first announced in July 2013, the ambition was for them to be acquired and built this year. That has now slipped—officially, at least—to spring 2016. Ten sites were identified in Herefordshire alone, but to date only two in the country, not just in my county, have been delivered. This is a vital area for the Government to focus on.
	I very much welcomed the Minister’s announcement on 6 January that the mobile infrastructure project masts would now run 3G and 4G antennae, which is a great step forward. He said that
	“we have put a rocket under the MIP”.—[Official Report, 6 January 2015; Vol. 590, c. 69WH.]
	Could he be a bit more specific? What we need now is a schedule of all the sites that Arqiva plan to develop, a detailed explanation of what barriers exist to getting the plans delivered and a plan from the Department to recover costs from Arqiva if the contract can no longer be delivered.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I met a group of constituents living at Yanworth in my constituency last weekend, who rely solely for their businesses on satellite technology, which is very slow. They have no broadband whatsoever, so should we not concentrate on the 10% that are harder to reach? I wholly commend what my hon. Friend has just said about the MIP rolling out broadband, so that we can use that for mobile technology at the same time.

Jesse Norman: It is to the Government’s credit that they have recognised the importance of the last 10%, 8% and 5%. Some will require bespoke solutions because those people live in such remote areas. We should allow technology to play its role in whatever form is required to deliver the signal that they need.

David Heath: This concept of the last 10% and the last 5% is what worries me. There is a saying in rugby clubs nowadays that the London Irish are known as the “not nots” because they are not London and they are not Irish. We have the same things with “not nots” in the rural population: people who do not get broadband, do not get mobile phone coverage and do not get the other infrastructure. They are simply left out. It is no good saying 90% or 95% are getting it, if the last 5% are always the same people—those who are living in rural areas.

Jesse Norman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. I guess I was making a different point—that no one should be left out, but that it may be the case that specific demands have to be met by specific technologies.

Daniel Kawczynski: As a Member of Parliament from a neighbouring county to my hon. Friend’s, I know that we are acutely aware in Shropshire of the problems affecting our rural communities. I would like to hear his views on this issue. We had to set aside money from our local enterprise partnership in order to deal with broadband issues. Does he agree that such money should come directly from the Government rather than requiring us to set aside money from LEP projects that should be funding other things?

Jesse Norman: My hon. Friend’s constituency and mine have the same LEP, so we are both affected by the problem. I believe it is within the scope of LEPs to top up existing money if they think that matters are not proceeding quickly enough. I only wish that they were proceeding more quickly and more thoroughly, in a way that would meet the need that my hon. Friend has described.

Guy Opperman: Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a change of emphasis from the Government? Instead of improving broadband quality for those who have some broadband—which, by and large, is their current policy, on a value-for-money basis—should they not focus primarily on areas with no broadband, so that real progress can be made?

Jesse Norman: I am not sure that my hon. Friend’s characterisation of the Government’s policy is correct, although that may be its effect. However, the principle of addressing the needs of people who have no digital connectivity is absolutely right, and is a crucial feature of the debate and of my argument.

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I am sorry to intervene on him yet again. Does he share my concern about the performance of BT Openreach, whose spectacular failure to connect houses in the new development at The Orchards in Evesham has appalled me? Many other such houses are occupied but still have no broadband connection. Has the time come for us to consider the legal separation of BT Openreach from BT itself?

Jesse Norman: At the risk of prolonging my own remarks, my hon. Friend has managed to read my mind. I plan to end my speech by focusing specifically on Openreach and the problem that he has described. As Members will know, Openreach is BT’s network infrastructure arm. I have been flooded with complaints about Openreach and its poor customer service, as, I am sure, have Members on both sides of the House. The problem is compounded by a lack of direct accountability to end users, and, I might add, to Members of Parliament.

Tessa Munt: I could not agree more. It seems to be impossible to contact Openreach. When I eventually forwarded a string of e-mails to the Minister, they were incomprehensible. The position was utterly unclear.

Jesse Norman: I assume that the hon. Lady means that the response from Openreach was incomprehensible, rather than the e-mails that she received from her constituents. [Laughter.] That is a vital clarification. I cannot comment on the quality of the e-mails, but I can absolutely identify with those who are experiencing those problems, and, indeed, with my constituents who have experienced them as well.
	This is a highly profitable business whose network expansion has been significantly de-risked by lots of cash from taxpayers. I should like to see much more openness towards end users, a public commitment to higher standards of service, and, potentially, an opening up of the network so that other operators can offer enhanced services, including customer service—if not, indeed, the possibility of full separation. I should be grateful if the Minister would add his voice, and his enormous authority, to this issue.

Julian Smith: In the short term, Openreach could do a great deal by pushing forward with its “fibre to the node” technology, which is an issue that the Minister has been working hard to
	solve. The technology could reach many of the communities to which my hon. Friend has referred, and BT and Openreach could do much more in that regard.

Jesse Norman: My hon. Friend is right. Nodes need fibrous connections.
	Access to fast broadband and mobile services is not a luxury or a game, but a necessity. It is vital to the successful work of businesses in our constituencies and the social well-being of our constituents—all the more so in rural areas, isolated as they are. Connectivity presents the possibility of a long-term renaissance in our rural economies, but we need continued, concerted and resolute action to deliver it. That action must come from the telecommunications industry, from the Government, and from the regulators.

John Woodcock: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) not only on securing this debate, but on the wonderfully persuasive and erudite way in which he opened it, which makes me slightly trepidatious about following him. [Interruption.] That is most kind. I also congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on finding the time for us to debate this hugely important issue.
	Even the urban parts of my constituency suffer economically from the geographical remoteness of our corner of Cumbria. My constituency includes small villages and one of the Lake district’s most remote valleys, which all Members should take the time to discover—not, perhaps, before 7 May, but at any time after that. Good-quality broadband connections are vital for local businesses trying to compete with those in more densely populated areas, for our sizeable tourist industry trying to make the most of our stunningly beautiful area, and of course simply for local residents who want to use the web at something better than the prehistoric speeds that so many of them have to cope with.
	Over the last two summer recesses I travelled around my constituency by bike, sitting down with local residents in front rooms, village halls and cafes to talk about whatever issues mattered to them, and time and again—whether in Broughton, Kirkby, Leece or Great Urswick—the issue of broadband speeds came up. Many residents knew they had been promised great things by the Government in terms of rural broadband but had not seen the fruits of that.
	Ministers have certainly talked the talk over recent years and some parts of my constituency are getting broadband which is much better, even if they believe, rightly, that the description “superfast” is overegging the pudding, but for too many other areas the reality on the ground simply has not changed. There is no great use in our revisiting here the fiasco of the bidding process for rural broadband, but the delays that led to it are still dragging on, leaving thousands of my constituents relying on broadband speeds of barely 1 megabit per second. In the village of Ireleth alone, 500 households are struggling along on that sort of speed. Hundreds of others in neighbouring villages are seeing similar glacial broadband speeds. The residents, as well as myself, are becoming increasingly sceptical about BT’s promises—the
	hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire eloquently made this point—to upgrade the local exchanges and ensure these villages get the 21st century service they deserve and need.
	Let me give my own experience to demonstrate this point. On 14 October last year my office received an e-mail from BT stating that the exchanges at Broughton-in-Furness and Greenodd, which serve most of the rural areas of my constituency, would be upgraded during the winter of that year. That was excellent news, but then, after Christmas, another constituent from the area contacted me about their very slow broadband. I wrote to BT again. On 21 January, just three months after I was told something quite to the contrary, BT responded that
	“there is no date available by when this will be ready.”
	BT understood, the e-mail went on to say, that its supplier, Openreach, had met its target of delivering fibre optics to two thirds of the UK and that anything further would be a matter for funding by the Government’s broadband fund. This is another example of it washing its hands of this situation and the clear responsibility of providing acceptable broadband speeds for my constituents.

Edward Vaizey: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge in the course of his brilliant speech—which easily passes muster with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman)—the £43 million that has been invested in Cumbria under this programme and the 119,000 premises that should get superfast broadband under it?

John Woodcock: Yes, money has been invested, and where it has come in, it has been welcome, but it has been too slow, it has not met the promises of delivery which the Government themselves set out and there are still too many areas that have got nothing at all, and they are tearing their hair out. As I am sure the Minister will accept, it is my responsibility to speak up for those people in the House today. On that note, will he agree to meet BT with me, so that it can explain when faster progress will be made and when it will meet the promise that it so clearly made?

David Heath: I recognise what the hon. Gentleman is saying. We have made good progress in Devon and Somerset in terms of the BT contract, but there is still the last bit. If I may say so, it is pointless meeting BT, because it simply will not deliver in those areas and what we need to look at now is other smaller providers filling in the bits that BT will never reach.

John Woodcock: The hon. Member makes a good point but BT should not be let off the hook on this, because it has made assurances to my constituents and to others that it has not delivered on.

Edward Vaizey: Of course I will meet the hon. Gentleman. Although it is a great hostage to fortune to say so, I make it a matter of principle that I will always meet any Member who requests a meeting to discuss this issue. And while I am on my feet, I will also say: Devon and Somerset, 300,000 premises and £92 million.

John Woodcock: Excellent—that is great news.

Chris Bryant: rose—

John Woodcock: Of course I will give way to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister; perhaps he could come along to this meeting too.

Chris Bryant: Will my hon. Friend point out to the Minister that just spending money is not a success, and that success is when—[Interruption.] Well, it is about time you lot learned that. It is when broadband is actually delivered that there is a success.

John Woodcock: I am afraid that I cannot agree to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister’s request because he has already eloquently put the case himself, and I would be a pale imitation of him if I were to try to follow.
	Perhaps we should not be all that surprised that so much of rural Cumbria is seeing such slow progress towards superfast broadband. Many of the areas that I have spoken about have yet to see any significant progress at all with the earlier technology of mobile connectivity.

Tessa Munt: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has had the same difficulty as I have had in extracting the information from BT as to which areas will not be covered by it. Accessing that information would at least allow the people affected to make alternative arrangements with a satellite company. I do not know whether he has managed to find some way of getting such information about his area, given the difficulties that I have had.

John Woodcock: The hon. Member makes a great point—the situation is a nightmare. As I have just set out, often when someone receives assurances, they prove not to hold water. BT is a company that we would think would be good at communicating, but it turns out that for too many of our constituents, who are really tearing their hair out about this issue, BT has proved to be the exact opposite.
	That has got to change, and either BT changes its ways itself—in response to the threat of other companies coming in—or, if I might offer the Minister some advice, the Government embrace the idea that they need to be more active in this sector. They had a tremendous example of a lean, active state, which was provided by the latter years of the last Labour Government, and this is an excellent opportunity for them to learn from those years and adopt the same approach in their own dealings.
	I turn to mobile connectivity. In the Duddon valley, if someone gets one bar of reception, they count themselves lucky. Again, this situation makes running a business tricky, or completely impossible, because it cuts off communities and in a remote area it also has serious safety implications. It is perhaps odd to think of mobile coverage as the next frontier after superfast broadband, but there has been little apparent interest from commercial companies in improving coverage for much of my constituency, and I am sure that the same is true of many other Members’ constituencies.
	Any movement on this issue is welcome, but with the greatest of respect to Shropshire, Dorset and Norfolk, pilot schemes in those areas do not mean much to my
	constituents in Cumbria or impress them very much, if at all. Many of my constituents also look askance at the Government plans to improve rural mobile coverage based on A roads and B roads. My constituents in Seathwaite, for example, are 3 miles from the nearest such road, hidden behind a 2,000 foot hill, so such plans are not likely to help them much. We need more ambition, not a brief flurry of activity because the Prime Minister could not get any mobile reception on his way to Cornwall.

Bob Stewart: My constituency is an outer London one. It is not rural, but it is nearly rural. We have A roads going through, and there are huge problems, not just in Keston in my constituency, but throughout Bromley, particularly as one goes towards Orpington.

John Woodcock: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps the way to get a quick solution would be to get a visit from the Prime Minister, a big fan of his, to his patch. It seemed to trigger the promise of action, if not the reality of it, when the Prime Minister was on his way to Cornwall. One never knows what could happen.
	For too many of my constituents, no mobile reception and super-slow broadband are not just a holiday inconvenience; they are a fact of everyday life that impoverishes them and holds them back from reaching the enormous economic potential that my region has. Let me make one final request of the Minister, as he was so kind in agreeing immediately to my first one. Will he come to the beautiful Duddon valley—he had better come quick, given the election on 7 May—in my constituency? When he has finished admiring the scenery, will he try to do some work there for 24 hours, without meaningful broadband and with no mobile reception? Perhaps then—if he can properly appreciate how difficult it is to get anything done there—we will see some quicker action to tackle the mobile and broadband deserts afflicting too many in my patch.

Daniel Kawczynski: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) for his excellent speech, eloquently making points about matters affecting his constituents in rural parts of Herefordshire. Needless to say, many villages in Shropshire are facing similar problems. Let me highlight the village of Pontesbury, the largest village in my constituency. As Members of Parliament are inviting the Minister to go all over the UK, let me invite him to the village of Pontesbury, an important and large village just to the south of Shrewsbury, where it is extremely difficult to get any mobile phone coverage. We have mentioned local businesses, schools and children needing to do homework and other things on computers, and this problem really is holding this village back significantly. So I am pleased to hear about the progress the Government are making.

Edward Vaizey: Perhaps I should clarify that when I am accepting invitations for meetings from colleagues I am happy to have them in the House. Let me also say that I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge the £28 million invested in superfast broadband in Shropshire, covering at least 50,000 premises—20,000 have already been reached.

Daniel Kawczynski: I will thank the Minister for that. Given what he has said, I will bring Pontesbury parish councillors to meet him here in the House of Commons before the general election, and I thank him for accepting.
	Let me make a brief point about the local enterprise partnership, about which I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire. I believe passionately that the LEP is there to bring Government money in to help with major infrastructure projects—projects that are going to create businesses, jobs and prosperity for the areas they cover. At the request of our council, a considerable amount of money from the LEP is now having to be put towards improving such services in Shropshire. That is clearly taking money away from something that I feel passionate about and that I wish to raise money for, which is the university of Shrewsbury. That money should not come from the LEP. As we are talking about a fundamental right of all our citizens, the money should come directly from the Government. We should not have to differentiate between the projects in the LEP.
	I pay tribute to the leader of Shropshire council, Mr Keith Barrow, who has campaigned tirelessly on the need for the Government to provide more funding and resources for broadband and mobile phone coverage in Shropshire. I look forward to meeting the Minister with the parishioners of Pontesbury and I hope that we can make progress on this issue in the months ahead.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. A large number of Members wish to take part in this debate. There will be an eight-minute time limit starting from now. I hope that that will last for the entire debate, and it will not need to go down any further. But we will have to keep an eye on the time.

Angus MacNeil: I am not sure, given the new time limit on speeches, whether I will get many megabits per second into my speech, but I will try to get in several syllables per minute.

John Woodcock: I see what the hon. Gentleman has done there.

Angus MacNeil: Well done, thank you. At least somebody on the Opposition Benches is switched on. I just saw a lot of blank faces on the Government Benches.
	As people, many of our needs have been met. We have food, drink, clothing and communication. In our houses, we have electricity, water and insulation, but we need communication and connectivity. That connectivity happens thanks to broadband—hopefully, it is 4G and mobile connectivity. The point was well made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) who talked about “not not spots”. Let us ensure that we get “have have” spots, because that is what we need. This connectivity is a natural need, and it is what many people want and expect. The expectation that that connectivity will be in place is growing. People are comparing the situation in their own areas not only with other places in their own countries but with other countries, particularly rural places in other countries.
	Our aim is to have superfast broadband and 4G reaching 98% of the population, which should mean that connectivity is well distributed across the country and that we do not have places in the UK where broadband coverage is far below 98% of the population. If 95% of us have superfast broadband, then surely 100% of us should get normal broadband. If superfast broadband has speeds of up to 30 megabits or more, surely others can reach 2, 4, 6 or 8 megabits.
	There is also a possibility of convergence with 4G, as 4G is primarily a data carrier with speeds of up to 30 megabits. It does not matter whether or not people are connected with fibre, because connectivity can be found to enable them to get on the web thanks to the speed of the new mobile communications.

Edward Vaizey: indicated assent.

Angus MacNeil: I see the Minister nodding. I am glad that he is in agreement with me. Connectivity is a social necessity and a business requirement. Young people definitely expect it in rural areas. If we want to keep young people in those areas, we should ensure that they have proper coverage.
	Recent lightning strikes in the outer Hebrides and the Na h-Eileanan an Iar constituency knocked out the British Telecom lines for a period of time. I came across hard-working BT engineers in ditches, fields and on roadsides, looking to find the faults for individual houses and knowing that the fault could lie in any one of four possibilities. They worked hard and did their best to get the lines up and running. Meanwhile, people have been in more than a not not spot. In fact, they have found themselves in a not not not spot—to extend the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.
	Mobile telecommunications are a social utility; they are really necessary for people. We are no longer talking about having them for lighter reasons. People, including pensioners, need the links to make contact with the outside world. Mobile telecommunications are particularly important in places that are far removed from major centres of health care. People who have heart attacks can be diagnosed or have measurements taken from them and then the details can be sent to a specialist who can then advise them on their treatment. I am talking about a life-saving potential, which I know that the Minister recognises.
	My fear is that the UK has been left behind in its treatment of rural and island areas. Island areas with the best coverage include the Isle of Man and the Faroe Islands, which control their own mobile and broadband communications. In many ways, the UK has failed in this regard, as 2G is patchy at best, and 3G is patchy if existent at all. Surely, this will not happen with 4G as well. In the Faroe Islands, for 50,000 people there are about 50 3G masts. We look at that with envy in the highlands of Scotland. With a femtocell system, they can reach fishermen 100 km off land on mobile phones on their boats. Although mobile phones do not have that range, they have developed the technology to do that.
	In places such as the Faroe Islands there can be a signal in the undersea tunnels between their islands. In stark contrast, people who travel into London cannot
	use their mobile phone on the Gatwick Express as they go through tunnels. That is an indictment of the treatment of mobile telephony in the UK. I happened to be on the train with a Norwegian the other day and he could not believe that his mobile phone would not work in the tunnels. There is a really bad signal and that is almost the benchmark of what has been happening.
	Roaming, or the lack of it, is definitely a problem. I think the model of not enabling roaming has been wrong, because sometimes, particularly in rural areas, there is a mobile telephone network available, but only one. People end up having to carry two mobile telephones and if they know the local area well they will know roughly which one they can use to get a signal. At this point, I praise Vodafone, which has been very good at providing a community Openreach system. I have managed to secure it in a couple of places in my constituency and hope to get it in more. It piggybacks the broadband network to give people a much-wanted mobile phone signal.
	We must listen when providers say that they could provide a better signal if they were allowed masts that were a little higher. I am not coming down on either side of that argument, as it might be a contentious issue and we will have to wait and see what people say, but we must bear it in mind. Mobile phone companies say that they could give us better coverage if they had higher masts.
	Companies also have problems with the bottlenecks of transmitters and masts. Sometimes, unreasonable rents are asked of a second mobile phone company that wants to use an existing mast, because of the basic greed of some companies. That is choking the life and expectations of many communities. The problem also affects tourism, as people go on holiday and are unable to use their mobile phones. That is a point of frustration. If they did not want to use their telephones, they would of course switch them off.
	There have been many pleas to the Minister to visit constituencies, but I would like to lighten his work load. I am not inviting him to my constituency—now there is a disappointed face. If he wants to come to Na h-Eileanan an Iar to see our beautiful scenery, he is of course welcome. My political point, which I think would help him, is that he should devolve much of these things to the Scottish Government, who could then control it all.

Edward Vaizey: The Scottish Government are responsible for the broadband roll-out programme, which involves some £200 million and passes almost 600,000 premises.

Angus MacNeil: I am afraid that I meant both mobile and broadband. The Minister is right that the Scottish Government have done a great job and he gives me a tremendous opportunity to tell him just how well they have done. While the UK Government provided £100.8 million through BDUK, £410 million is being spent on the Digital Scotland superfast broadband programme. For that, great thanks should go to the Scottish Government, who know full well and understand the situation.

Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman is fiddling the figures. The total might be £400 million, but well over £100 million of that came from the UK Government and well over £100 million
	from BT. The Scottish Government put something in, but delivery by the Scottish Government and BT is hopeless. It is high time that the hon. Gentleman got on to the Scottish Government and told them to deliver broadband to my constituency with the money they have.

Angus MacNeil: I see that the hon. Gentleman is criticising British Telecom—I am not sure whether he is calling for a Scottish Telecom. When he spoke on this issue in the middle of last month, he did not allude to the fact that there was £400 million. He said that only £120 million was being spent and did not give the full picture at all. He will, of course, be delighted to know that a 4G pilot project is coming to the island of Coll, which I am very pleased and excited to hear about. Surely he should be welcoming the progress we have seen and the laying of fibre cables to 19 remote islands, including some of my own. I am pleased to see that and I hope that it will expand. If the Scottish Government were not involved and only his own Government were, we would not have seen that at all and we would have been in a parlous state. The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember just what the Scottish Government have done. Just today, we have the news of the improved services going live in Orkney and Shetland—not my islands or his, but we celebrate that that is coming. I particularly celebrate that the service is on the way to Stornaway as well, where 5,000 premises in the Hebrides will be connected to superfast broadband for the first time.
	Our next step is to expand throughout all the islands, in the rural areas of each island, and to make sure that everyone benefits, because we do not want a situation where we have the not not not spots. Lack of broadband access is a social blight and a business blight, which of course leads to an economic blight. We need the same connectivity not just as the cities of the UK but as the rural areas of the Nordic countries.

Nick Herbert: First, I add my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) for initiating this debate and the interest he has taken in the subject, which concerns a large number of us who represent rural constituencies and who believe that access to broadband is now essential, not a luxury. Despite its relative proximity to London, I had in my constituency two of the country’s four not spots. Even though the villages are just 50 miles from London, broadband was not available at all. The latest House of Commons figures suggest that only 52% of my constituency has superfast broadband access, making it one of the worst for broadband coverage. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent rural constituencies will be familiar with that situation.

Richard Drax: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that we must not forget the plight of farmers, who now have to apply online for their money from the EU? Between 10% and 15% of farmers do not have the capability to do so, which will have a serious impact on their livelihoods.

Nick Herbert: I strongly agree. That is a good example of why access to broadband is no longer a luxury but a necessity, particularly when people such as farmers are required to file information in that way.
	Three and a half years ago, I held a summit in conjunction with West Sussex county council. The then Culture Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), attended and we had a good meeting to discuss how to improve the situation. Following that, the Government announced their programme to extend broadband access across the country and West Sussex county council announced its Better Connected programme. With £6 million-worth of central Government support, which was matched by the county council, the programme will fulfil the Government’s ambition to ensure that 95% of the county has access to superfast broadband and the whole county has broadband coverage by 2017.
	I welcome the Government’s support and commitment. I recognise what they have done to make improvements, but we have to look ahead and test whether what is being done will be sufficient to ensure access for those in rural areas who will not benefit from the programme. The Rural West Sussex Partnership, which is a branch of the local enterprise partnership, Coast to Capital, has suggested that in fact the coverage delivered by the programme will not be 95%, but could be 90% or even as little as 85%. Even if 95% coverage were to be achieved, there would still be the matter of the 5% of people who did not have access to superfast broadband. They are often the people who do not have access to mobile phone coverage, either, and are therefore effectively disconnected.
	I know of the strong interest taken by my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who met me recently to discuss these issues. I was grateful to him for the interest that he showed and for listening to the concerns that I set out. I have a few observations which I hope he will not mind my repeating to the House.
	First, as other hon. Members have pointed out, there is a problematic lack of competition in the sector. That is one of the reasons why we are not seeing the necessary roll-out, an effective roll-out or sufficient customer service. There was a problem in the initial contracts which were awarded by BDUK because, although there were originally two bidders, one—Fujitsu—dropped out. We ended up, therefore, with one bidder for the contract, BT. So there is an effective monopoly and that is unsatisfactory. That is not the Government’s fault; it is simply the reality.

Chris Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We need greater competition because that would deliver results faster for everybody. However, I query his last comment. With 44 small tenders, it was remarkably difficult for anybody to presume that they might gain more than one, other than BT. My worry is that the way the tender process was set up created the monopoly in the first place.

Nick Herbert: I am not sure whether that is the case, but we can look ahead at how we can inject more competition into the sector to ensure the competitive pressures needed to improve customer service. I would look again, as hon. Members have suggested, at BT’s relationship with Openreach and see whether there is a case for splitting them, injecting more competition there and potentially breaking up Openreach. We need more competition in this sector.
	Secondly, we should not be fixated on the fibre-based solution, which will never be realistic in the hardest-to-reach rural areas. In those areas, wireless technology or access to 4G or faster mobile data signals will become the solution. I do not believe that satellite will be the solution. We therefore need to ensure that the kind of solutions being advanced in public-private partnership recognise that different solutions will be necessary in rural areas.

Graham Stuart: Does my right hon. Friend, like me, welcome the £10 million fund that the Government have created to develop new technologies? Does he, like me, hope that the Government might be able to go further to make sure that small companies, such as those in my constituency, can be supported to develop the technology, show proof of concept and thus challenge BT and deliver for rural communities?

Nick Herbert: Indeed. Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the Government’s funding initiative in this area. I had intended to go on to say that. None of what I say is a criticism of the Government; they are merely suggestions as to how we can improve the situation further.
	Thirdly, we need to ensure that the technologies adopted are future-proof. There is a danger that in seeking to meet the commitment to wholesale coverage by 2017 or superfast coverage for 95%, technologies are adopted that will not stand the test of time and will quickly be found to be insufficient.
	Fourthly, I have a general observation to make about subsidy. Given that we all agree that access to broadband is an essential public service, there is a role for public subsidy in this area. That role should be to correct instances of market failure. We need to be careful to ensure that subsidy is not directed at companies or providers where the market would provide a service. With the current BDUK roll-out, there is a danger that public money is being used to close the gap in areas where it would have provided the service anyway, and the remaining 5% or 10% is not being covered. We must ensure that in future subsidy is directed to the hardest-to-reach areas and that the market is left to fill the gaps. That is a hard judgment to make, given that we are trying to ensure that the market operates properly.
	In my constituency villages are being connected one by one. There is a tremendous improvement, which reflects the initiative of the Government and the country council. I welcome that, but I suspect that many of those villages would have been connected anyway to fibre. What is happening is that the rural areas are being left out. I remind the House that these rural areas comprise a great number of people and rural businesses who need to be connected. There is the danger of a growing digital divide, which might in turn become a further manifestation of something we need to avoid: a rural-urban divide. We see that in many other aspects of policy, and I think that we should strive to prevent it.
	I mentioned that three and a half years ago I convened a summit to discuss how to improve the situation in West Sussex, and I believe that it bore fruit. I therefore suggest holding another similar event in West Sussex, not to criticise but to look forward and see how we can close the gap and ensure that we do not have a digital
	divide in rural West Sussex in future. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considered attending the summit, partly because of the lessons I think there would be for other rural areas. The summit would have the active support of the South Downs National Park Authority, for instance, which is very interested in the issue. The Government have done a great deal to improve the situation. We must now ensure that we go further and close the digital divide.

Margaret Ritchie: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and to the Backbench Business Committee for securing this important debate. I often think there is a problem with people in rural areas being told to modernise and “get with the times” while being provided with none of the infrastructure or capacity needed to do so. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and of which I am a member, only this morning published our report on rural broadband and digital-only services, following closely behind the National Audit Office’s recent report. I will focus my remarks on the deficiencies in rural broadband provision and the impact on local business, farming communities and economic growth.
	Members will be aware that responsibility for the roll-out of broadband access is devolved, with funding, to the devolved Administrations, as the Secretary of State noted in answer to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). However, we in Northern Ireland face many of the same problems, and unfortunately many of the same deficiencies, with the Government’s approach to tackling rural connectivity, because communications and connectivity are central components of this and have to be resolved. In common with others across the UK, we face the issues associated with there being only one service provider—BT.
	As phase 1 of the rural broadband project is rolled out, in parallel with the Government’s “digital by default” strategy, we must urgently take stock of the process and act to correct failings in subsequent phases. “Digital by default” should not become “digital by diktat”, especially in cases where the support is simply not there. At the moment, “digital by default” is proceeding at a pace that the broadband connectivity strategy is struggling to keep up with.
	A central criticism made in the Select Committee’s report is that current efforts to bring rural communities up to speed with basic broadband access fall short of the EU’s Europe 2020 target of having superfast broadband—30 Mb—for all by 2020, and the universal service commitment target of 2 Mb already looks out of step with consumer and business needs, even though, sadly, it probably will not be met.

Anne McIntosh: Is the hon. Lady aware that Germany has set a target of 50 Mb by 2020, and that the overall EU aspiration is to have 30 Mb by 2020, which means that our farmers’ competitors will have much faster broadband?

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful intervention. Those countries are in direct competition with us, and people involved in rural businesses, particularly
	those in farming communities, will be at a disadvantage. The Government urgently need to address this issue in conjunction with BT.

William McCrea: Does the hon. Lady accept that some areas in Northern Ireland are enjoying superfast broadband, but rural communities seem to lack it, and certain areas have very little broadband, with families, as well as local businesses, suffering as a result?

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I agree. The conurbations of Belfast and Derry have benefited from superfast broadband, but we who represent rural communities have not seen the best impact of that innovation. In my constituency, I have not spots and also the impact of a mountainous region. That topography limits the accessibility of people trying to get on to superfast broadband.
	Priority needs to be given to business centres in rural communities. In my area, a business centre was approved by Invest Northern Ireland and given planning permission by our local planning authority some years ago. It has a box for broadband connectivity that is not even enabled, and that will not happen until next year. How on earth do Government, in UK national terms or in devolved regions, expect a local economy to grow and develop and to provide for its citizens, whether they are ordinary rural dwellers or those who undertake farming enterprises, unless they have total access to broadband? That issue needs to be addressed.
	From an infrastructure point of view, copper wires, which deliver basic broadband, will have to be replaced by optic fibres to deliver superfast broadband within a matter of years. As optic fibres are significantly cheaper, it makes no sense that intense efforts are being made to offer rural communities a mediocre broadband service that is already considered outdated at a time when urban areas are already receiving upgrades to superfast broadband.
	Only this week, the Federal Communications Commission in the United States approved a new definition of what constitutes a broadband service, dramatically increasing the required minimum speeds from the current standard. Other countries recognise the importance of rural access to broadband, and if the UK does not, consumers and business will be left behind. The FCC has suggested that 25 Mb should be the new standard speed. If that is the case, we will definitely be left behind.
	We are very much at risk of opening up a digital divide and a digital deficit between those with high speed and those without. This affects not only individuals but businesses in local areas. How can they be expected to compete without fair access to the same opportunities offered by new technology? In the EFRA Committee report, we suggest introducing subsidies such as vouchers. We also recommend investigating alternative technologies. That is being explored by the Government, and I hope that it comes to fruition. I urge the Secretary of State to give careful consideration to our report, on which the Government are expected to report anyway. Some very useful recommendations are contained therein which could assist the Government in working with BT and influencing it to carry out full implementation for the sake of farmers, rural communities and those engaged in rural businesses.

Julian Smith: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) for securing this debate.
	North Yorkshire was one of four pilot areas that won a Government commitment in 2010 to push forward with superfast broadband in rural areas. To counter the comments of the jumping jack shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the whole idea of the project was that it should be driven by communities and not top down from London, and that approach has worked to great effect in North Yorkshire. The group of MPs, including my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), the council and local politicians have all driven Superfast North Yorkshire, which is now delivering to 86% of the most rural county in England, and that figure will rise to 90% over the next year.
	Our contract was different from the Broadband Delivery UK contract. It was a specific contract with, ultimately, BT, but it was very competitive: there was full competition and transparency and BT won it at the end of the day. I pay tribute to those working locally, including John Moore, the chief executive of NYnet—the broadband body of North Yorkshire county council—who will retire in the next couple of months, and my predecessor John Watson, who has chaired that body. The contract has some great innovations. BT will pay back money to the council as part of it, if demand and usage are adequate. BT is also committed fully to a minimum of 2 Mb for all areas of North Yorkshire, whatever happens, and we will hold it to that commitment.
	Farms and hard-to-reach areas in the most rural communities of Skipton and Ripon and North Yorkshire face huge challenges, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) that they will be solved only through wireless and innovative technologies. The cost of delivering through BT could be up to £1,500 per house and it is only innovation that will get us there.

Adam Afriyie: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about competition and the benefits of the scheme in his area. Does he agree with me, as chairman of the parliamentary space committee, that broadband links certainly have a role to play in the short term, although fibre is clearly the long-term solution?

Julian Smith: I agree. That is a valid point and I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s expertise on this topic.
	I pay tribute to the Government for the £10 million fund for innovation—North Yorkshire has one pilot project called Airwave—but the exceptional broadband Minister may need to dig a little deeper over the coming months and years in order to top up that fund and get a few more pilot projects going. I pay tribute to LN Communications in North Yorkshire, which, through David Hood and other investors, is trying to deliver solutions.

Julian Sturdy: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and he is absolutely right to champion the success—a lot of which is down to the Minister—in delivering broadband to a number of communities in North Yorkshire and York over the past
	few years. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is critical that we ensure that those last few remaining rural communities without high-speed broadband in his constituency and mine can get connected? A digital divide is materialising and this is about getting the last penny we can out of the funding.

Julian Smith: Absolutely. That is a well-made point. This is not just about the Government’s responsibilities; people are taking responsibility themselves. The B4RN project—Broadband for the Rural North—split between Lancashire and Yorkshire has sought out all of the disused wires and cables to make the most of the opportunities to deliver superfast broadband.
	We have not yet discussed the issue of demand, demand stimulation and how much superfast broadband is being used by our communities. On average, the figure is 18% to 20%, and in North Yorkshire it is about 20% to 25%, but we need to get those numbers up. The Opposition criticised the Government for an ad campaign over Christmas, but they were absolutely right to spend that money. What is the point of all the pipework and infrastructure if they are not going to spend money to encourage people to use it?

Chris Bryant: rose—

Julian Smith: I am not going to give way to jumping jack.
	I pay tribute to the expertise of Chris Townsend, who has no need to do the job but who is giving great public service by leading BDUK and pushing us forward.
	We have talked about Openreach, and I concur with all the comments made. We are generally happy with BT in North Yorkshire, but there have been major service and data issues. We have tried to get information from particular boxes so that we can work out where we can improve and get more demand—again, the Minister has been helpful in knocking heads together. The issue of fibre to the node is providing opportunities to get deeper into rural areas, although BT has dragged its feet on that.
	Ultimately, the infrastructure of the fourth national utility is managed as a subsidiary to the overarching board of a global successful corporation. Is that the right structure going forward? In football rights versus infrastructure I think football rights will always probably win, and we must have a real think. Ofcom started that in the past few weeks, and we must think over the coming years, with a Conservative-led, competition-driven Government, about how Ofcom is structured for the future.

Richard Benyon: I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	I represent a rural constituency that is in the teeth of the superfast broadband roll-out, and is also the home of Vodafone. Twenty-five years ago, the first call was made from Newbury. The office contained 12 people and was above a curry house at the top of the high street. Vodafone is now one of Europe’s most successful companies. I do not stand here as the voice of Vodafone,
	but it is worth pointing out that the technologies developed through the inspirational leadership of people such as Sir Ernest Harrison are remarkable.
	I was in Africa not long ago seeing the M-Pesa project, which is responsible for about a quarter of the financial transactions. It has completely changed the social dynamic and the ability of people who work in distant places to send money. It is remarkable. In this country Vodafone has developed a system for supporting people who are victims—or potential victims—of domestic violence through an alert system, and it deserves credit for much of what it has achieved.
	West Berkshire has a rural population that is involved in two of the most dangerous professions: agriculture and the horse racing industry around the Lambourn valley. Getting good mobile phone coverage is not just a matter of convenience or of jobs and employment, but can be something that saves lives. The roll-out of the mobile infrastructure project is dear to our hearts in that area, and I would welcome an update from the Minister on how the project is going.
	I welcome the Government’s effort to solve the problem through a legally binding agreement with the four networks that will see £5 billion invested in the UK’s mobile infrastructure. The results need to be visible as soon as possible so that constituents in areas such as mine can maximise their businesses, and people who live in rural downland villages in west Berkshire can fully partake in the dynamic Thames valley economy.
	I am interested in the report produced by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I hope that we can hold the feet of the various delivery agencies and companies to the fire, and ensure that we deliver on some of the dates. The Government’s original objective of rolling out superfast broadband to cover 90% of premises by 2015 has been altered to 95% of premises by 2017. BT has said that it is there or thereabouts, but that it might end up being achieved in 2018. I hope the Minister will ensure that such comments are challenged. Chris Townsend of Broadband Delivery UK has stated that he is “absolutely committed” to finalising the last 5% by 2020 at the very latest, and if that is accurate I hope we try to speed it up.

Neil Parish: This is one of the problems. BDUK seems to be putting back the start date for many schemes. The village of Upottery near Honiton does not know whether it will get superfast broadband in 2016, 2017 or 2018. BDUK has been given money to get to the hardest-hit areas, but it is not getting there on time. I hope the Minister will keep up the pressure on BDUK to deliver.

Richard Benyon: I am supportive of what the Government have done and of the range of options to ensure there is no digital divide between town and countryside, but that does not mean we should ever be satisfied. We should push at the door wherever we can.

Alistair Burt: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, Dunton in my constituency was expecting to have its broadband confirmed, but it has been delayed yet again. Such dashed expectation is a constant concern. Even though there is a small percentage left to cover and the Government have done a great job, that small percentage feel left out.

Richard Benyon: That is frustrating—I entirely understand my right hon. Friend’s concerns.
	I had the pleasure of being the Minister responsible for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Nobody feels more strongly about landscape than I do, but our planning policy is still restrictive. There is a phrase that I find myself using too much in politics: “The squeaky door gets the oil.” Often, when there is a proposal by a mobile phone company to put up or raise a mast to achieve more coverage, there is a lot of noise from a small number of people. The silent majority who just want a better mobile phone signal are not heard. It is important that we listen to the silent majority.

Guy Opperman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Richard Benyon: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not because other hon. Members want to speak.
	At least two mobile phone masts in my constituency are designed as pine trees. I am not a great fan of pine trees and the masts do not look like pine trees to me, but they work perfectly. That is a solution for those who believe landscapes will be abused by the presence of masts. I urge mobile phone companies to develop more fake pine trees of that nature.
	Regulations on renting land for masts and on repairing and upgrading those masts have not been meaningfully updated since 1984. The industry suffers from much higher rents. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) made a good point about urban mobile phone signals, and that is one of the reasons for his problem. In Madrid, there are two thirds or at least half as many more masts than there are in London, one of the most important cities in the world. We can understand why his constituents are frustrated. My question—it is perhaps more philosophical than asking for views from the Front Benchers about the election—is on whether we should be looking at mobile phone delivery much more as a utility. My fellow members of the Country Landowners Association might not thank me for saying this, but it could be an opportunity, because that might dictate a different type of rent.
	The electronics communication code needs amending, and amendments to the Infrastructure Bill tabled to introduce the new code were withdrawn. I hope the Minister updates us on the code.
	I want to draw hon. Members’ attention to a remarkable Vodafone project in west Berkshire, in the village of East Garston up in the Lambourn valley. I hosted an event and I am really pleased the Minister came and made an excellent speech. There are pilots around the country and that was an opportunity for him to show off his new beard, which we all welcome. In rural locations, networks can struggle to deliver coverage by traditional means, but it can be done through small technologies. In that case, a community of 450 people in a not spot have been provided with a signal from a church steeple. The Vodafone project was delivered not through a top-down statist approach, but through a local provider working with a community. It was a joy to see the first of those Vodafone pilots. It is now one of 100 schemes throughout the country. We have heard of a similar scheme in north Norfolk that has transformed the tourist potential of the area. That is a key area of delivery for the tourist industry.
	I would love to spend more time talking about broadband connectivity. We in west Berkshire look forward to ensuring that 95% of Berkshire is covered by 2017. Our focus is now on the final 5%. I believe my local authority will make an announcement in the next few days which will be welcomed by a great many people, and that we will see benefits delivered. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) that the last 5% will always be the most difficult—on any subject. We must focus not just on being rigorous in one technology but across the piece. We must be flexible and local in how we deliver this. The Opposition suggest a centralised approach that we know has failed in the past. The Government have put in place an approach that works with communities.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: I call Cheryl Gillan. Ah!Mrs Gillan has toddled out of the Chamber. I was going to call Anne McIntosh, but she has toddled out of the Chamber too. I call Mr Alan Reid, who has staying power.

Alan Reid: I thank the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) for so ably introducing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to raise the hopeless performance of telephone companies in Argyll and Bute.
	In the past two months, telephone companies, both landline and mobile, have failed miserably to keep many of my constituents in telephone contact with the rest of the world. Following a storm in early December, some constituents are still waiting for their landline service to be repaired. The experience of one constituent from south Kintyre is typical. He reported a fault in December. BT made an appointment for an engineer to visit on 28 December. That appointment was not kept. It was the same on 14 and 28 January. He is still waiting. He now has another appointment for this Thursday. I hope that this time the engineer will turn up and fix the fault.
	BT’s excuse is that it has declared MBORC, which stands for “matters beyond our reasonable control”. It claims that owing to exceptional circumstances, it is unable to meet its normal commitment times to provide a service or repair faults. It seems that by declaring MBORC, BT can also get away with not turning up for appointments. This is totally unacceptable. The engineers are clearly working flat out, often in difficult weather conditions, but BT clearly does not have enough engineers operating in Argyll and Bute.

Roger Williams: My hon. Friend has been given a different excuse for not fixing a fault. In my constituency, the problem was the unforeseen meeting of NATO in Newport. Does he agree that that was a foreseen circumstance?

Alan Reid: My hon. Friend is correct. We all knew for months, if not years, in advance that NATO was meeting in south Wales. His comments clearly indicate that BT looks for excuses to declare MBORC.
	As several hon. Members have mentioned, BT Openreach is in the privileged position of having a monopoly on landlines. It should not be able to dodge its responsibilities
	for months simply by declaring MBORC. Will the Minister look at the regulations again?
	The universal service obligation is supposed to guarantee a landline service no matter where one lives, and my constituents are quite rightly fed up being told that if they lived in Glasgow their phone line would be repaired quickly, but that they will have to wait months because they live in a rural area. I hope the Minister will look at the regulations again. Heavy fines need to be levied for failure to repair faults in a reasonable time and for not turning up to appointments. If BT was faced with heavy fines, it would compel it to employ enough engineers.

Robert Smith: It also transpires that Openreach pays compensation to service providers, but not all service providers necessarily pass that compensation on to the end user. Perhaps if there was more of a compensation culture the management would be more efficient about maximising repairs.

Alan Reid: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Fines are necessary to encourage companies to carry out their responsibilities properly, and not just use the cop-out of declaring MBORC.
	On mobile phones—the problem is not just with landlines—Vodafone cannot escape criticism either. Its performance in carrying out repairs has been poor. For example, last summer it took 18 days to repair a fault on the isle of Islay, and another fault on Islay in December took even longer to repair. These are not isolated cases. There is now yet another fault on Islay that is taking ages to repair, and there have been several instances in other parts of Argyll and Bute of long delays. When challenged, Vodafone dodged responsibility by blaming the many other companies involved in tracking down and repairing faults.
	A mobile phone service is not a luxury these days, but a necessity—for example, if someone’s car breaks down on a quiet country road or a farmer has an accident. I am aware of a farmer who broke a leg. He was conscious and able to use his mobile phone, but because he had no signal, he had to lie in severe pain until somebody found him. That shows the importance of mobile phone coverage these days. It is an essential, not a luxury.
	I am pleased the Government have reached an agreement with the mobile phone companies. It means that the latter will be investing at least £5 billion over the next three years to extend coverage and improve signal strength, and that the number of places not covered by mobile coverage will reduce by two thirds. However, I will keep fighting for 100% coverage and speedy repairs, because speedy repairs are as crucial as the original investment. It is no good having a box-ticking exercise with an investment strategy, and then failing to maintain the service. Constituents with contracts with Vodafone are entitled to use the service. Leaving everything to the market is no good, because the mobile companies and BT Openreach would simply concentrate on the densely populated areas and ignore the highlands and islands. The Government should introduce performance standards for repairs and fine companies that fail to meet them.
	Having criticised Vodafone for its failure to carry out repairs in a reasonable time, I want to congratulate it on its Rural Open Sure Signal programme, which will bring
	mobile phone coverage to several villages in my constituency. However, I urge it to follow up the initial investment and all the publicity with a proper repair service, because that investment is no good if the system does not work.
	I was pleased when in 2013 the Government gave Arqiva a contract to build mobile phone masts in places where there was no signal. The new masts were supposed to be up and running by the end of this year, but from the experience of Argyll and Bute, this programme seems to have badly stalled. The last time I met Arqiva, it could not say where in my constituency the new masts were to be sited or when they would be constructed. We need more transparency, and I hope the Minister will tell Arqiva to publish its intentions now. We need to know where the masts are going and when they will be put up.
	Bringing superfast broadband to rural areas is vital. I am pleased that more than 20% of the Government’s investment in superfast broadband—more than £100 million—was given to the Scottish Government to bring superfast broadband to rural areas in Scotland. However, delivery was left to the Scottish Government, and they gave the contract to BT Openreach. Cables have been laid and some addresses have been connected to the new superfast broadband, but most of Argyll and Bute is extremely frustrated that neither the Scottish Government nor BT can tell them when, or even if, they will get broadband. Some people on very slow speeds tell me they do not want superfast broadband; they just want a decent broadband service.
	The Scottish Government and BT must be much more open and tell people when, or if, their home or business will be connected to fibre-optic broadband. Not knowing what is happening prevents people from making other arrangements, such as wireless or satellite. Given these failings, I must congratulate a local organisation on its initiative. Mull and Iona Community Trust, well led by its extremely enterprising general manager, Moray Finch, is leading the way with a project that will deliver superfast broadband by wireless to parts of Mull and Islay, as well as to the islands of Iona, Colonsay, Lismore, Luing and Jura, and to Craignish on the mainland. MICT has done very well, but that same type of project should be going on throughout Argyll and Bute, because in many places it is simply not practical to deliver superfast broadband via fibre-optic cable. I want the Scottish Government to follow the lead of the Mull and Iona Community Trust and work with community groups throughout Argyll and Bute to deliver superfast broadband everywhere in the constituency.
	It is not just in remote rural areas that problems arise. BT promised that the town of Dunoon in my constituency would get superfast broadband paid through BT’s own resources last year. However, this was postponed without any announcement—it was only when people started complaining that we found this out—and it is supposed to be happening this year, but there is still no sign of anything happening. Some constituents receive extremely slow broadband speeds of well under a megabit in some cases. It is high time that BT got the work done and gave my constituents a decent broadband service.
	Broadband and mobile phone services are essential these days. Investment in infrastructure and much speedier action when faults occur are essential. The Scottish Government and BT must drastically improve their performance to bring superfast broadband to Argyll
	and Bute as a matter of urgency. BT and Vodafone must drastically improve their performance when repairs are needed. The loss of both landline and mobile phone services in Argyll and Bute this winter have been unacceptable. I call on the Government to beef up the regulations so that phone companies can be fined for poor performance when repairs to the phone infrastructure are needed.

Anne-Marie Morris: This is an important topic, and I shall concentrate on rural broadband rather than mobile technology. In Devon, we have challenges with both, but the broadband issue is certainly acute.
	It must be said at the outset that the Government are to be congratulated on their ambition to achieve 95% superfast broadband coverage by 2017, which is admirable. The Government are to be congratulated, too, on the level of contribution provided to those in rural areas. Devon has had a generous settlement, so the real challenge has been matching that funding. At the moment, we are pretty much on course to achieve it.
	As a number of colleagues have acknowledged, the challenge is in implementation. The first challenge is to manage expectation. The original maps on what was going to get done and when were, frankly, not fit for purpose. The current offering is very much better, and I accept the limitation that a postcode can never entirely clarify exactly where people can and cannot get broadband. The problem is that the consumer who signs up for superfast does not know that. If we cannot do a better job, can we have at the very least a health warning or something put in the contract so that people realise that at the end of the day when they have paid their money, they still may not be able to receive superfast broadband?
	My second point is managing the roll-out, which has been mentioned by a number of colleagues. Clearly, to get to this 95% figure, we will have to make sure that the commercial commitment from BT and the subsidised commitment from BDUK are both met. There is a concern that although the match funding projects with BDUK are moving forward at a reasonable pace, the commercial ones are not. This needs to be carefully managed.
	Thirdly, dealing with the last 5% is most important. If people live in a rural part of the country, it is critical to take account of it first and foremost rather than last or as an afterthought.

Neil Parish: We talk about the 5%, but in many constituencies—mine included—a lot more than 5% are affected. It might be 5% nationally, but it is probably in the order of 65% of my constituency that do not receive superfast broadband. We need to concentrate more on getting this out to the harder-to-reach not spots.

Anne-Marie Morris: My hon. Friend makes an appropriate point. Although the Government have done a good job looking at the new technologies—I believe they have considered reducing the options to about three—we need more than just “these are the best options”. It needs to be rolled out, and MPs and councils need to be kept well abreast of what the options are. With self-help support for local communities, we should be able to make this happen.
	My communities have got together in a number of areas—and dug ditches and done deals with BT—but this is not well publicised. People living in a community who know that superfast is not coming any time soon are likely to have very little support from the Government. There is very little knowledge that would enable people to get on and do it. The Minister very helpfully provided me with the names of some satellite companies in my constituency, one of which has proved to be first-class. However, I am not convinced that I would have been given an answer if I had not asked the question.
	We must bear in mind that the alternatives have cost implications. I believe that there is a system in Wales whereby vouchers are provided for those who have to take the satellite rather than the fibre route. I urge the Government to think carefully about what can be done to help communities that need help now, rather than waiting until everything else is finished.

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend has talked about those who are hard to reach. Does she agree that another technical problem has emerged? The longer it takes to provide a superfast connection, the less likely it is that the speed being offered will be sufficient to deal with the new technology that will then be available. That is a further reason to continue the great work that the Government are doing, and to seek alternatives so that the technology is not compromised at the end of the process.

Anne-Marie Morris: That is an excellent point, and I am sure that the Minister will take it on board.
	My fifth point is this. I do not feel that businesses are at the forefront of the challenge. Broadband is now as necessary as electricity and gas—it is the fourth utility—and if businesses cannot be supported, we are not doing our economy justice. Business parks and business estates are not automatically connected, and BT has been reluctant to deal with that, telling my constituents that it would not be profitable. That, to me, is a real challenge, because I think that businesses must be seen in a very special way.

Guy Opperman: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. I think that it applies not only to businesses and commercial premises, but to planning for housing estates. It is vital for the respective departments and planning authorities to talk to each other as the houses are being built. Superfast broadband should be built into new developments, rather than individual constituents having to apply for it after buying their houses.

Anne-Marie Morris: That is an extremely good point. BT may claim that the development is in an area that they do not expect to expand enough to justify the commercial cost, but that is not an argument. We know that development will continue. Broadband should be built in at the start: it is no good waiting for it to be a challenge later on. As for businesses, I find it rather horrifying that 35% of business people who work from home still rely on mobile broadband and 45,000 businesses still rely on dial-up. That simply cannot be right.
	I have reached my sixth point. The House will be pleased to know that the list is shortening. I think that the promise that everyone will get at least 2 megabits per
	second poses a real challenge to the Government, because, in my view, that is not enough.

Caroline Nokes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Anne-Marie Morris: I will not, because I am short of time.
	I think that we should take account of the demand for a minimum of 5 megabits per second rather than 2. I gather that the average speed that we have managed to deliver is just over 5 megabits per second, so let us aim for that. I think that the Federation of Small Businesses is considering 10 megabits, which may be a bit hopeful at this stage, but a speed of 2 megabits per second is not fit for purpose. Whether people have enough supply to carry out even some of the most basic tasks, such as reading e-mails, depends very much on the level of demand.
	Last on my wish list are two technical points. One is the challenge posed by the wiring between the cabinet and the home. All the rhetoric is about getting superfast broadband to the cabinet. I have asked Ministers, BT and just about everyone else I can think of who is responsible for upgrading the connection, but they have all looked sideways and said “Not me.” Well, it certainly is not the home owner. We need to clarify who is responsible, because if we do not deal with that, getting the wire to the cabinet will not solve the problem.
	My final point is about take-up. I know that the Government consider that to be one of the real challenges, which is why they have launched an advertising campaign. If take-up is too low, BT will not have a commercial incentive. However, I think that we need to view the position differently. It is not just a question of advertising. The whole concept of the importance of broadband needs to be hard-wired—forgive the pun—into our planning system, and into how we view buying, selling or renting a property. The information about what is available needs to be there up front; it needs to be part and parcel of searches and the general inquiry someone makes when looking for a new home.
	Let me summarise my key points and requests to the Government. First, we should look at how we can make the sector more competitive, and consider having the Competition and Markets Authority and Ofcom looking at it. Many Members have raised that point. The challenges and problems we face are in part to do with having effectively a monopoly supplier in BT, because unless it is in its interests and it can make money out of it, it simply does not happen. Secondly, please can we move to more than 2 megabits per second? Thirdly, can we look at improving the self-help? If we can improve the information flow so that people understand what can be done and when, that will be great.
	That is a very brief summary, but I hope the Minister has taken on board many of those points.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. For the avoidance of doubt and pursuant to what was said a moment ago by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), I can advise the House that, as things stand, there is no particular pressure on time. That might change, but that is the situation at the moment.

Guy Opperman: Broadband is just as essential to homes and businesses as electricity and telephone lines in the 21st century. All of us endorse the long-term economic plan as the way in which this Government will turn the country around in the future, and key to that is having broadband, including broadband to the rural areas of our country. In debates such as this, I often hear colleagues talking about their very rural constituencies, but, as you will know, Mr Speaker, my constituency is the most rural in all of England and it is the least densely populated constituency per square mile—there are 1,250 square miles—in England too.
	As with Mark Antony and Julius Caesar, I come to praise the Minister, not to criticise him, because the reality is that he is an honourable man and he has in an epic recession overseen a very substantial investment of Government money into Northumberland, which has resulted in the provision of significant amounts of broadband. That money, going through Northumberland county council and working with BT Openreach, has provided a significant expansion on the utterly woeful situation we inherited in 2010. [Interruption.] Throughout this debate we have heard endless chunterings from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—one of only two Labour Members on the Opposition Benches, so interested are Labour Members in this subject—but in reality we were left with a terrible situation that this Government have, to their great credit, turned around.

Graham Stuart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the near absolute absence of Members on the Opposition Benches shows the indifference to the rural interest that too often seizes the Labour party, so that even when there are arguments that would reasonably be accepted by their Members they do not come here to hear them, and that rural residents across the country need to recognise which parties do take an interest—including our coalition partners?

Guy Opperman: In what must be the ultimate not spot, nobody who represents an England or a Scotland constituency is present on the Labour Benches. It is not very impressive, we would all agree.
	I want to start by talking about the progress that has been made in Northumberland, such that there has now been provision of fibre broadband to Stocksfield, Heddon, parts of Wylam, Ponteland, Stamfordham, Great Whittington, Prudhoe, most of Corbridge, Slaley, most of Hexham, parts of Allendale, Gilsland—as Joan Thirlaway only recently texted me—Greenhead, Haltwhistle, Bardon Mill, Haydon Bridge, Humshaugh, Wall, Chollerford and Wark, all of which is very successful. Sadly however, as the House will be aware, I could also give quite a long list of villages and places which have not had that benefit, although the local authority and BT assure me that it will be provided in 2015. Indeed, only today I received notification from Lieutenant Colonel Richard Clements, the commanding officer of 39 Regiment Royal Artillery, that Albemarle barracks, after many years of not having broadband, now has—literally as of today—fibre broadband being provided to it and the troops there, who have returned from Afghanistan. I pay tribute to the great work that he and all the people who work at that barracks have done to bring that development about.
	However, I could list a large number of villages that do not have broadband. It is fair to say that while progress has been made, there are gaps, misnomers and, sadly, too many false dawns. All of us have seen examples of where BT—it is sometimes the county council, but primarily it is BT—will suggest, “Oh, it’s all going to be wonderful in this village. We are providing this broadband to the village, or town.” Sadly, however, what happens is that the broadband is not provided, or else there is only partial provision.

Nicola Blackwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make the point about false dawns; I have had many such instances in my constituency. Does he agree that it adds insult to injury when the communication about what will happen and when problems will be put right is often very poor indeed, and communities are left very uncertain about when they will get broadband and what will happen?

Guy Opperman: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I can give examples of that situation. Corbridge Computing Ltd was as excited as I was when Corbridge, a substantial town in my constituency, was told on 19 September 2014 that it had received upgraded broadband. The company asked for the installation the next day; it is just metres from the exchange and various cabinets. To this day, however, it has still not been provided with any upgraded broadband. I could give similar examples, for instance at Dissington Hall. I will open its new rural enterprise hub, which is just outside Ponteland, this Friday, and it is hoped that new businesses will start up there, but to begin with there is the difficulty of not having the internet support that businesses obviously need. In a moment, I will discuss the problems that exist in the village of Matfen.
	The reality is that we have false dawns and the situation is extremely difficult, because the lack of communication, and the inability of the roll-out to perform as we were originally told it would, lead to a loss of enthusiasm and support among local communities and constituents.

Caroline Nokes: My hon. Friend mentioned the failure of the roll-out to deliver what is expected of it. Does he share the concern of residents in a new development in my constituency, called Abbottswood, which is right on the edge of Romsey? On moving into their new properties—there are 800 new homes in total—they expected that they would have high-speed broadband, but, unlike the rest of Romsey, they have nothing.

Guy Opperman: That relates to the point I genuinely want the Minister to respond to. Where there are new developments up and down the country, it must be part of the section 106 agreement of planning that the housing developer installs broadband as part of the planning agreement. It seems utterly illogical that we have either residential or mixed-use developments being brought forward without this fundamental precondition. If nothing else comes from this debate, we must surely address that issue.
	I make the point to the Minister that in Northumberland we have not slept on our laurels. We have explored alternatives. Many people in the county have satellite solutions, or line-of-sight solutions such as Wildcard,
	which serves all the village of Newton. In those circumstances, such providers have genuinely made a difference locally.
	Sadly, however, value for money is the key driver of Government policy. I understand why that is the case in a recession, but the consequence of value for money being a driver of policy means that the last 5%—or, as in rural constituencies such as mine, that of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), and those of the hon. Members from Cornwall and Devon, those hard-to-reach areas or total not spots—are always the last ones in the queue, because it is so much easier to address those areas with limited broadband, or those that are easier to connect to the exchange. The Government must look at the way in which they structure agreements in the future, so that a change in emphasis takes place. Without that, I foresee difficulty in getting the roll-out to the hard-to-reach areas.
	I have repeatedly had meetings with the Minister, the Secretary of State, Broadband Delivery UK, which I met last week, and BT Openreach, the head of which I met only yesterday in the House of Commons. I welcome the fact that a genuine difference is being made, because it is important. I see that when I look at the example of Matfen, a village in my constituency that has had particular difficulties. People there were encouraged by BDUK to seek significant demand registration under the iNorthumberland procedure, to encourage greater funding and to encourage BT to tailor its roll-out to those areas. The consequence is that they sign up to these things but are then told that they are not going to be part of the roll-out that they thought their sign-up was so good for. In the case of Matfen we are exploring, and will be in various meetings in February, how to find a way forward in phase 2 of the roll-out, because these things create false expectation among our communities, which is not good. I appreciate the work BDUK and BT Openreach are doing to try to turn this problem around. When I spoke to executives from BT Openreach yesterday, they made it clear to me that Northumberland was a future priority for them, and my constituents will be delighted if that is genuinely proven in the developments that we hope will take place.
	We will need to look at not only the planning point I raised earlier, but how LEPs, and rural growth funds can support provision. We still have silos, whereby BDUK, BT Openreach and the Government are working in one silo, and the LEPs and others are working in another. It is extraordinarily difficult to get everybody in the same room, getting a holistic group view on the particular problem. Let me finish by mentioning the problem of towers and masts. My constituency has more than 50 masts belonging to various different parts of government, but it is extraordinarily difficult to get all those masts to be signed up for the provision, ultimately, of broadband.

Robert Smith: I am pleased to take part in this debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing it, because it has highlighted, across the Chamber, the need for broadband and mobile reception in rural areas, and the recognition that it is no longer a luxury, but a necessity.
	Let me start by discussing the basic need for some kind of phone that connects someone’s house to the network and by reinforcing the concerns about the performance of Openreach in the most basic provision of phone lines, especially to new builds in the constituency. It has sometimes taken six months between someone moving into a house and their having a basic phone connection. We are talking not about superfast broadband or broadband, but a basic phone connection. Anything that the Minister can do to improve that performance will be welcome; the point has been made that such a connection should be treated like electricity and water as an essential service to the household. I hope he will also deal with the relationship between Openreach and the service provider in ensuring that the consumer gets compensation for a failure to deliver. Such compensation would help focus the mind and make some recompense for people not having that basic service.
	As many have said, we still need to roll out basic broadband to many of our constituents. I remember that when the first roll-out took place the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) was the Minister. He was an extremely useful Minister for my constituency, because he dealt with broadband, post offices and the oil and gas industry, bringing together almost all the casework for someone dealing with a reserved section of the legislation, given that so many other activities are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. He was being shown all the different innovative projects. At the time, Scottish and Southern Energy was going to do broadband through the electricity cabling, but suddenly the exchange in Stonehaven mysteriously reached the trigger point for BT to roll out ADSL. The point about competition and the importance of driving forward innovation has been made well in this debate. The wi-fi solution for many of those places still needing a broadband connection has been highlighted by others as an important way forward.
	I particularly wish to reinforce the importance of superfast broadband to the north-east of Scotland, because with the oil and gas industry, there are a lot of businesses dealing with large amounts of data, and a lot of those businesses have grown up in rural parts of Aberdeenshire. Similarly, many people who work in the industry or work abroad could work from home if they had the proper superfast connections to deal with the data. The money that the UK Government have given to the Scottish Government needs to deliver on the ground for those people in the north-east of Scotland if we are to keep a vital industry effective, at its most efficient and raising more money for the tax system to reinforce investment in infrastructure.
	The other challenge is not just the mobile phone reception from the network but the fact that many of the traditional houses are made of granite, which mobile phone signals cannot penetrate. The business centre in which the constituency office is based is a brand new building with high-quality insulation, which again cannot be penetrated by mobile phone signals.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman cites a problem that is very similar to the one that exists in the valley communities in south Wales. People cannot get mobile telephony inside their homes because their houses are
	made of stone or granite which cannot be penetrated by the signal. A possible answer to that lies in wi-fi, for which people need broadband. People end up getting hit by a double whammy.

Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a point. There was also the illegal solution of boosters. Perhaps it is time for Ofcom to look at how mobile phone signals can be boosted in properties and business centres. Individual suppliers using wi-fi and broadband could be a solution—that could be the case for the business centre that I mentioned. There would need to be a signal booster for each network, but it should be looked at.
	Let me reinforce the fact that broadband and mobile phone connections are not a luxury; they are essential. It is time that we saw delivery to those rural areas that missed out the first time round.

Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to see in their seats so many parliamentary patrons of the rural fair share campaign. Although we are talking today about broadband and mobile coverage, we must see the matter in context. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing this debate and the Backbench Committee on its work.
	Let us talk about context. It is a pity that we have no one other than the Opposition Whip and the shadow Minister in their place to hear this. The context is that people in rural areas are, on average, poorer than people in urban areas. They earn less; they have fewer services; they pay higher levels of council tax; and they suffer from lower funding of health, education, police and fire services. To add to that disadvantage, they find that they are in the 5% or 10%—whatever percentage it is in some grand number—that does not get the good thing that we are talking about. That merely compounds a disadvantage that is to be found in so many areas already.
	What we need to do from the rural interest point of view is recognise that rurality is a need in the same way that deprivation is a need. It drives cost in the way that deprivation does, and we must make the case. We must have a broad understanding of the needs of rural communities. Let me say to the Opposition Whip, who, unfortunately for him, is in his place, that when we were discussing the Government’s programme to bring decent broadband service to rural areas, one of his colleagues said that it would mean faster internet shopping for millionaires—he went on to say faster internet shopping for wealthy people. That is a misconception of the disadvantage and low income of so many people in rural areas. They are removed from services and removed from access. The one thing that they had hoped would close that gap is digital technology, but all too often that is closed to them as well. That is the context.

Rory Stewart: Given that the fundamental challenge of rural areas is the barrier of distance, surely what we need to emphasise is that there is nothing more powerful than the technology of broadband and mobile in overcoming that barrier and in bringing rural areas all the opportunities of networked lives.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is right. I pay tribute to him for how since the moment he was first elected and arrived in this Chamber—and probably before that—he has taken seriously the need to get broadband into his rural constituency. It was a privilege to attend a conference that he organised for hundreds of people in Cumbria some years ago exactly to highlight this problem.
	I want to move on to talk about the long-term economic plan. When we consider the economic needs of the nation, one thing we see is that there is a productivity gap between urban and rural areas. The analysis of why that productivity gap exists shows that the problem is connectivity. It can be about highways and railways and buses, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) rightly says, it is also about the digital divide. That is why if we are to have an equitable country that is fair to all and that closes those gaps, we must prioritise this issue.
	My hon. Friends must realise that after 13 years of the previous Government—understandably, as we can see the level of interest in rural issues among Opposition Members—fewer than half of all households, and those the easy and commercially available households, have superfast broadband. It is this Government, who in so many ways have had to do the heavy lifting, who have taken that figure to three quarters of households and who, by 2017, will be delivering 95% coverage. As has been said, I am concerned about the other 5%.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Graham Stuart: I will give way to the shadow Minister and I hope that he will apologise not only for the failure of members of his party to take an interest in this vital issue but for the fact that in government—perhaps preoccupied with other matters—Labour did not focus enough on the needs of people in rural areas or recognise the disadvantage there.

Chris Bryant: I am sort of grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I was not going to make a very aggressive point. I was just going to suggest that he might correct his figures. Superfast broadband is not the major issue that most people have been complaining about in the debate. The complaints have been about getting even to 2 megabits per second. Our ambition, which we would have secured, was to reach that speed for everybody by 2012 and it was his Government who abandoned that target.

Graham Stuart: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the only people I have heard who felt that that programme was on track to be delivered were representatives of the Labour party. It is a shame that there are not more of those representatives in the Chamber today to intervene and explain precisely how it was going to be delivered. The hon. Gentleman is an excellent advocate for a difficult cause, and I respect that as a politician, but the truth is, as he knows, that the record of his party was weak. The record of the Conservative party is distinctly better, but we should recognise the context. We are all saying to the Government and to the Minister that it is not enough; we must go further and that is why we are here today. It is great to have the shadow Minister here today, even if we do not have any of his colleagues—[Hon. Members: “There is one!”] I apologise.
	We have the opportunity to put an ambitious aim in all the manifestos. Let us ensure that people are not isolated and that we close the gap.

David Heath: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to the question of the economy and growing businesses? One quick boost that we could give to a lot of small businesses would be to encourage entrepreneurs who want to provide broadband by a wi-fi connection to places that will never gain from 3 miles of copper cable to the nearest exchange. I met such an entrepreneur only last week who was to provide for about half a dozen villages in my area. I would love to point him towards the Government funding that would give him the start that would enable that to happen, but at the moment it is not obviously there.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is quite right. One of the challenges for the Government is that they are not very good at dealing with small organisations. I have a company offering a service in my area called Quickline. It contacted me and said that it would love to launch a hub in a local pub and then to offer it out to the surrounding community. I was rather rotten to the person who approached me, as I thought they were looking to do it somewhere quite close to Beverley, which would be easier. I said, “What about Holmpton, down near Withernsea?” I thought that it was about the most challenging place I could find for them and, to be fair, they agreed. The George and Dragon had that hub installed a couple of years ago and provided the offer in an area that was otherwise a not spot. It is difficult for Government, who have to secure and assure the use of public money, but we must find a way of dealing with small companies, some of which might go down as well as up. We must take some risks if we are to deliver this goal.

Nicola Blackwood: I could not agree more that connectivity for rural businesses is an essential service. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the rural broadband voucher scheme, which is used in Oxfordshire to provide small businesses with up to £30,000 to pay for superfast broadband connections, has been a really valuable scheme? It expires at the end of March, and it would be helpful to know what might replace it.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend has put that on the record and I am sure the Minister will try to answer. I hope he has time to answer the many questions that have been raised.
	As we know, the 95% delivery target for phase 2 funding is a national target, and obviously there are fears among colleagues that the 5% figure may turn out to be larger than that in their area. The aim was that the funding for that, for which £5 million came to the East Riding, should be matched—it is a shame to see that there is not even a shadow Minister now, just a Whip, however marvellous he may be, which he is, of course. However, East Riding of Yorkshire council is struggling to find the other £5 million, so there is a danger that we will not get the 95% provision.
	What can be done to make sure that we target the most hard to reach? It does not matter what we are dealing with, whether it is the DECC work to reduce home energy use or anything else, the tendency is to
	pick off the low-hanging fruit, the easy targets. Somehow we need to design a system that starts with the most difficult-to-reach properties and works back. That way, we are the least likely to do as my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said, which is subsidise something that would happen anyway and not target the money on those who need it the most. That is important for the future.
	It is estimated that by 2024, the Government’s current investment in faster broadband will be boosting rural economies by £275 million every month—not each year—which is about £9 million every day. It makes economic sense as well as good social capital sense to make the investment. Will the Minister update the House on the innovation fund we have heard about today, which is available for alternative technology providers who can then come up with innovative and radical approaches to reach the most remote communities? If he can do that, we will be grateful. Is there a prospect of the fund being increased?
	I was delighted to hear that the Minister secured a landmark deal with mobile networks to improve mobile coverage across the UK. I mentioned earlier that, following that agreement, Vodafone will be extending 3G coverage in my constituency from just over 20% now to 99% by 2017. That is a significant move forward.
	What are the Government doing to ensure that broadband infrastructure is available in areas where it would not be commercially viable for companies to install it? Also, as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report today asks, is enough being done to hold BT to its promises? What about commercial plans from providers such as Kingston Communications, in our area? In those areas where the commercial providers said provision was commercial, they have not always fulfilled and moved on. We need to make sure we have a system in place that holds them all to account, but I congratulate the Government on doing so much more, despite the chuntering from the Opposition.

Eric Ollerenshaw: It is a great pleasure to follow yet another Yorkshire MP. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on instituting what I think has become an annual debate, with the annual roll-out of the Minister.
	I am sure the Minister has a good idea of some of the things I am going to say, but before I go into what are essentially concerns about rural roll-out, I will add my voice to the view expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) about the need, if we are building these thousands and thousands of new houses to try to make up for the previous Government’s failure, to make this fourth utility part and parcel of the build scheme. It seems incredible to me that it is not. I understand that the Government are looking into it, but it should already be in planning policy that these connections should be part of future building schemes.
	At the moment in Lancaster, where we have large regeneration schemes going on, people are moving into flats or houses and discovering that they have no connection
	and that individually they have to find a way to get connected. That is amazing in the 21st century, especially in apartment and flat-style properties, and it is something the Government need to get a grip on through planning policy.

Caroline Nokes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is surprising that developers are not more keen to ensure that their properties have the capability to be connected to the network, which is a selling point?

Eric Ollerenshaw: I agree, but that is not happening. The market is not yet delivering. Where it is not delivering, the Government should be delivering, in terms of planning regulations at the very least.
	On the roll-out of broadband, to be fair, the Government took the decision in 2010, which we all welcomed, to do something for that section of the rural community that had been left out for so long, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) pointed out. Villages in Lancashire are being connected. It may be fast or slow in certain areas, but some of those contracts are being delivered. As the Minister knows, I, like other hon. Members, was concerned about the missing 5%. I was approached by a group led by Professor Barry Forde of Lancaster university, who said that the BT contracts could not work because of the copper to fibre issue, so BT would be unable to deliver the speeds that it had promised. [Interruption.]

Edward Vaizey: I would be happy to offer my hon. Friend a glass of water for his cough, but we are out of water. I see that the military prowess of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) has kicked in—he is bringing a glass of water.
	As you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was up in your constituency just this week, and a beautiful part of the country it is.

Lindsay Hoyle: Last week.

Edward Vaizey: I am sorry—last week. The weeks tend to blend into one. Some £50 million, 98% coverage in Lancashire, and 150,000 premises—that has to be something to shout about, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) will do so once he has had a drink of water.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention. He is right, and I paid tribute to that.
	Back to the missing 5%—the group led by Barry Forde suggested that it would take up the 5% with a not-for-profit social enterprise and deliver hyperfast super-broadband—that is, 1 gigabit—to every property within a defined area. The group approached me as a constituency MP. The group eventually became known as B4RN—broadband for the rural north. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) that B4RN does not lie between Lancashire and Yorkshire. It is based in Lancashire, but gives some help to Yorkshire, as usual.
	What the members of the group proposed to do seemed incredible at the time, but they have set about doing that since 2010 and have now wired up every single property in the villages of Arkholme, Abbeystead, Aughton, Capernwray, Dolphinholme, Gressingham, Newton, Docker, Littledale, Quernmore, Roeburndale,
	Wray, Wennington and Tatham, and soon to be connected are Melling, Whittington and Wrayton. The group is looking to wire up with 1 gigabite of speed 2,500 people. Already we have interest from businesses, doing the very thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness hopes will happen, which want to move into the area that B4RN covers because of the potential offered by this hyperfast broadband delivery.
	The history is interesting. When the group decided to do that in 2010-11, members applied for some of the funding from BDUK, but the district council and the county rolled up all the funds and gave all the grants to BT, which resulted in B4RN complaining to the European Commission about the use of state aid. B4RN agreed to drop the complaint provided that the county would protect its postcode areas, as against BT’s scheme.
	Hon. Members have mentioned the situation of BT, and I have brought up before the near-monopoly that exists.

Ian Lucas: It is not a near-monopoly; it is a monopoly.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I stand corrected; it has all the features of a monopoly. Let me give an example. One of the villages supposedly in the BT area is Dolphinholme, which lies between two villages that B4RN was going to wire up, so its wiring went through the village. Villagers there had been waiting for BT, but it had not yet turned up, so they asked B4RN to connect them. B4RN then began connecting those people who requested it. BT has since moved into the village and, instead of just replacing copper with fibre, is wiring the node all the way through in a way that it has not done anywhere else in Lancashire, and all for a village of just over 200 people. Why is that? It looks as though that multi-million pound business is trying to squeeze out a voluntary, not-for-profit organisation that is proving extremely successful.

Guy Opperman: The thrust of what my hon. Friend is saying is that BT will do anything it can to drive out alternative providers in our local areas.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Absolutely. As we have heard hon. Members shout from across the Chamber, it is the behaviour of a monopoly.
	Another characteristic of a monopoly is a lack of transparency. Let me give another example. Two weeks ago a resident of the village of Scorton, which was to be wired up by BT, approached me to say that he was having problems getting in touch with BT to find out what was going on. He runs a medium-sized engineering company from home with national contracts. I took the first step of any constituency MP and asked BT what was going on. I was told that there were technical difficulties. Eventually, I went to meet the resident in Scorton and found that he had been told that BT was now de-scoping the area because it was too difficult—I had been told one story, and he had been told another.
	I am still waiting, three years down the line, for BT to hand me a map showing exactly what it is doing. Let me explain to hon. Members that these are villages up in the Pennines. Then there are places, such as Glasson Dock, which lies on flat land on the coast just beyond Lancaster, that BT is not wiring up, even though there
	are more residents there than in Dolphinholme, where it is delivering fibre, fibre, fibre. I know that the Public Accounts Committee has looked at the situation, but I would ask it to look again at the BT situation.

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend’s wish has been granted, because at the end of last week the National Audit Office issued a report praising the effectiveness of the broadband roll-out scheme.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I beg to differ. Perhaps the Select Committee that looked at it here could recall BT. I have made inquiries about how to get the competition authorities to look at the situation. This is the behaviour of a monopoly: there is no transparency, we are not being told what is going on, and indeed we are being given disinformation.

Ian Lucas: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. Is not he, like me, upset by the complacency of those on the Government Front Bench about the monopoly that the coalition Government have constructed?

Eric Ollerenshaw: No, because I know that the Minister is not complacent, and I know that delivery across most of Lancashire is extremely effective, as the hon. Gentleman would have heard had he been here at the beginning. What hon. Members here are concerned about is the last 5%. I ask the Minister once again to look at BT’s performance in that remaining area.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. At least three Back-Bench Members still wish to speak, so I am reducing the time limit to five minutes from now.

John Glen: It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing it once again. The real challenge, as we have heard in contributions from across the House, is the remaining 5% and the pitch of frustration our constituents feel when we do not see sufficiently rapid movement, when there seems to be a lack of reliable information and when they cannot get the answers they so desperately need. A significant portion of the e-mails I receive relate to the remaining 5% in south Wiltshire.
	Connectivity is an essential part of our daily lives—it is the fourth utility—but it has not existed reliably in some parts of my constituency. Just a few months ago, residents in Bishopstone and Coombe Bissett were cut off completely from the outside world when there was a fault on their main telephone lines. Neither village has mobile phone coverage, so the loss of the connection left elderly residents unable to reach their panic buttons, employees unable to pay their tax bills, and at least one local business on the verge of collapse. This happened four and a half miles from the city of Salisbury. That is why we need to look carefully at all the options that exist at this point in the delivery of the roll-out to maximise broadband, and 4G, coverage.
	Rural communities are resilient and innovative, as several colleagues from across the House have said, but we must do more to help them benefit from creative solutions. Two villages in my constituency, Broad Chalke and Winterslow—I thank the Minister for visiting
	Winterslow a couple of years ago—have benefited from Vodafone’s Rural Open Sure Signal programme, which provides 3G coverage to sparsely populated areas that otherwise would have none. That has had a transformative effect. The simplest tasks, such as schools phoning parents when their children are ill, or lost delivery drivers getting in touch, were impossible without this technology. It is imperative that we continue to look creatively at other solutions that might exist and that we do not offer inferior solutions on the grounds of cost alone, and cost as it is today.
	One of my constituents who is a dedicated campaigner for better connectivity in rural areas has lived with satellite broadband for nine years. That system relies on individual packets of data being sent about 44,000 km from a satellite. He tells me that while the system functions well when downloading large files, the delay in these packets of data makes everyday browsing or video streaming very difficult. I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that alternative solutions are also on the table. I am aware that the Government have put £10 million into the pilot schemes in rural areas using different technologies, and that they will be evaluating the success of those different pilot schemes. I echo the comments of hon. Members who said that more needs to be allocated to that initiative, because that is where the last 2% or 3% are going to find their solutions. There are improvements in technology all the time, and the Government need to be right on top of the best solutions as they come into existence.
	By sheer coincidence, my constituent had a new 4G mast erected close enough that he could benefit from it. I want to highlight to mobile phone companies, and to the Minister, the immense opportunity that exists in this regard. There are areas of the country that will not be able to benefit from fibre broadband cost-effectively but where 4G could provide an answer. That can be nothing short of transformative for these communities, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) said, for urban areas as well.
	I hope the Minister has listened carefully to the intense and sincere speeches that have been made, because there are serious issues for constituents across the country who are so frustrated when they cannot get this matter resolved. We need to make sure that we use the new technologies and that they are delivered as quickly as possible. We should welcome the fact that only 3% of premises in the UK are now suffering speeds below 2 Mb, down from 11% in 2010, but let us not be complacent. Let us do as much as we possibly can to speed up the roll-out for the last 5%, or even the last 2%, who we all intensely fear will never get a solution.

Robert Jenrick: Some right hon. and right hon. Members will be surprisingly familiar with my constituency, including the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), although I will not dwell on the result of his leadership of the Labour campaign in the by-election. As they will know, the constituency is predominantly rural, with more than 150 villages, from the suburbs of Nottingham going up through north Nottinghamshire. Our second-largest employer is Vodafone, which employs more than 500 people in the town of Newark. My
	predecessor and I have had an extremely good and productive relationship with the company. There has been good news, which I will come to, but there are number of concerns.

Edward Vaizey: Start with the good news.

Robert Jenrick: I will deal with that last.
	During his Westminster Hall debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) set out eloquently the moral and economic case for broadband in rural areas. It is not just about isolation, but about enabling people to lead full lives in an interconnected world and to consume the news, learn, be economically active and connect with relatives who live around the country and the world. I am part of perhaps the last generation of MPs to have known the world before broadband, and the opportunities it presents are immeasurably greater than those I knew as a child.
	The greatest barrier to aspiration and meritocracy is lack of information. Individuals frequently set their horizons according to the world they know and have it broadened by more information and knowledge about which university to go to and which employer to seek out. It is no exaggeration to say that broadband access is about giving young people and those of all ages the benefits of the rich possibilities of our interconnected world. Not having those opportunities has a major effect. It is also evident that such access is about economic growth. The 150 villages in my constituency are brimming with small businesses, entrepreneurs and communities that want to get on and succeed, but they are being held back, with one hand tied behind their back, because of a lack of broadband access.
	This is also about closing both the rural-urban gap and the north-south divide. Some 350 people commute from Newark to London. That is a difficult journey to make every day, but it can be made regularly if people can work from home with good quality broadband.
	Nottinghamshire county council has made good progress in recent years. I pay tribute to Nicola McCoy-Brown, my contact at the council, and the £20 million better broadband for Nottinghamshire programme. A number of villages, including Collingham, have seen huge improvements in recent years, but a huge amount of work remains to be done. More than 40 villages in my constituency have little broadband, certainly not enough to run a business or to work or do proper education from home.
	I want to raise a few concerns. The first is whether all the public money is being well spent. Those Members familiar with my constituency will know that a vast swathe of it is, in effect, made up—my constituents will not thank me for saying this—of commuter villages that are almost the suburbs of Nottingham. I am surprised that those villages are deemed not economically viable for BT to be able to supply them. I suspect that East Bridgford, Bingham and villages surrounding Southwell are economically viable and that BT is not using public money appropriately.
	Secondly, the figures of 5% and 10% are frequently misused, because they are denoted by country and local authority. The result for local authorities that are predominantly urban, such as Nottinghamshire, is clearly very different from the result for those that are predominantly rural. My constituency is the 10% that is
	rural in Nottinghamshire, so the definition of what is rural and remote in Nottinghamshire is different from that in Herefordshire, Wales and Cumbria. In fact, a vast swathe of that 10% is not particularly rural or remote at all. I think the definition is misused.
	I entirely endorse earlier comments about linking mobile and data. Smartphones are ubiquitous in my constituency, but no one can use them, even in Newark town. They are sold in all the shops by all the dealerships, but no one can use them.
	Time is against me, so I will finish by addressing Openreach. The company claims not to be a monopoly, but it displays all the characteristics of one. I know this issue is market sensitive, but I urge the Minister to look into it. For good business reasons, the organisation needs to be separated from BT and broken up. In the short term, I urge the Minister to do something about the appalling customer service at Openreach and to encourage it to treat its customers with the respect and dignity they deserve.

Alistair Burt: I have followed the debate carefully and was not sure whether I would have time to speak, so I am delighted to be the last speaker from the Conservative ranks. My speech will, of course, commend the Government for the extraordinary work they have done on broadband, while suggesting one or two changes that will make all the difference.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and the Backbench Business Committee on initiating this debate. The response from the House has made clear that he touched on a number of issues that are common to those of us who represent rural constituencies, wherever we sit in the House, and it has been essential to get the matter before the Minister and the House.
	My constituency exhibits a number of characteristics that we have heard about, such as properties with fewer than 2 megabits in local authorities that I represent—that affects 8.6% of properties in Central Bedfordshire and 12% in Bedford borough. Again, the same properties tend to miss out, and the hard to reach are genuinely hard to reach.
	I have an inventive and thoughtful community that has tried all sorts of different things. It is effective at putting a case together and has detailed plans. I have attended two public meetings in the village of Colmworth and heard a very detailed description of its business premises, residential areas, and the needs of such a rural area. North East Bedfordshire has a diverse community that depends on a relationship between the rural and the urban, as well as on connectivity. The opportunity to work there is becoming even more essential.
	Let me say two slightly controversial things. First, I praise BT’s regional partnership director, Annette Thorpe, who has worked incredibly hard with people in my region. I have met her more than a handful of times in different villages in my constituency. She has tried to meet some of the problems, but the difficulty has been that BT is overstretched. It has had too much work and has not been able to deliver, and it has been a problem to satisfy expectations. Annette Thorpe has worked extremely hard to do all she can.
	Secondly, my hon. Friend the Minister has been a victim of his own success. The Government inherited a poorly developed programme from the previous Government—whatever the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) says—and they have made remarkable steps forward. However, there is so much work to do and a limited number of people to do it, and it has not been possible to deliver everything we wanted. Communication has been crucial. In Bedford, BT has been struggling to deal with the volume of open market review requests and invitations to tender. That has resulted in it trying to make sense of its own data, which has held it back from the next steps it needs to take. The sheer volume of work being done has caused it to become a victim of its own success.
	As well as the familiar issues that colleagues have mentioned, there are some new ones. BT has realised that even when it gets to the end of its programme, it might not be able to deliver. There are some properties it just cannot reach, so what is to happen to them? If it does succeed in delivering 2 megabits, that will not be enough for existing technology, and the issue must be thought through.
	A further problem that we have not spent much time on concerns new developments in rural and market town constituencies. King’s Reach in Biggleswade is a new development on the edge of my largest town with 20,000-plus people, and they find it hard to get broadband and superfast broadband. I pay tribute to that community, which worked incredibly hard, and particularly to Councillor Bernard Rix, who led the work with BT, and my assistant, Mandy Setterfield. We have worked with Annette Thorpe—sometimes behind the scenes—to push things along, but there have been problems with siting cabinets and getting new properties linked up. When talking about linking up the old, we must not forget that we must also deal with linking up the new.
	Finally, I would like to take up the kind offer of my right hon. Friend to meet representatives from my constituency.

Edward Vaizey: I must accept that kind invitation, especially since my right hon. Friend has just promoted me to the Privy Council,

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sorry that we have lost a minute because we may lose another speaker. I am sure that could have waited.

Alistair Burt: If the Minister would kindly meet a group that represents not only the older rural areas that are trying to be connected, but representatives from the newer areas, I am sure he will understand our problems, including those in Dunton, which thought it was on the list and has now been bumped off. I am very grateful for the time of the House and to my hon. Friend the Minister, who should be my right hon. Friend very soon.

David Heath: As a brief coda to this excellent debate, I do not believe the Minister doubts my commitment to broadband in rural areas. We have spoken many times about it. I am grateful for his commitment to the roll-out of the programme across the country and what the Department
	for Culture, Media and Sport has done. I used to have meetings with him as a DEFRA Minister. The two Departments energised each other in those meetings.
	I am grateful to Somerset county council, of which I am sometimes critical on other matters. It has pushed strongly, but the fact remains that, despite its best efforts, very substantial parts of my constituency will still not get high-speed broadband in the initial roll-out. Often, they are the same parts that do not get mobile phone coverage.
	The Minister made a brilliantly witty speech at the opening of the Haynes International Motor museum in my constituency, but if he had any doubts, he heard directly from my constituents how important broadband is to us. It is important for them in their domestic circumstances and important for their businesses.
	We must now concentrate everything we have in Government and local government on ensuring that the bits that will not be reached catch up with the rest. That will not mean extending the BT contract, even if we know where the boundaries of the contract lie. It will not mean getting more large companies engaged in programmes across the country. It will mean stimulating many small businesses to provide wi-fi connections to small groups of villages, to provide the plugs to fill those gaps. We need to find the mechanism that makes that work effectively. If the Minister can do that in his remaining months in his current position, I will be eternally grateful to him. I may even take him up on the offer of meeting him with a few of my constituents to make the point yet again.

Chris Bryant: I agree with the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). At times, I have felt as if I have walked into a meeting of the 1922 committee this afternoon—it has been a congregation of the excluded, the dispossessed and the disconnected. I should tell all hon. Members who have complained about the last 3% or 5% that I feel their pain. I recommend that they vote Labour at the general election because that is the only way they will get this sorted out.
	For once, it is not just about the many, but about the few. As many hon. Members have said, mobile telephony and broadband—superfast broadband—are not luxuries any more. They are a fundamental and essential utility. People have a right to expect both in residential properties, and businesses have a right to expect them. As the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) said, many business parks are still not connected. Incidentally, ensuring that that is rolled out is the strongest argument for state intervention. That is one of the things we need to look at.
	If hon. Members watched “Last Tango in Halifax” on Sunday evening, they will know how important mobile telephony is. A wedding might all too easily be cancelled because somebody did not manage to send a text message or get mobile coverage to be able to say, “I’m on my way.”
	For that matter, in many places in the country, if people want to watch “Last Tango in Halifax” half an hour or an hour later on iPlayer, they would have to
	have 2 megabits per second at least, and yet, as many hon. Members from parties on both sides of the Chamber have said, too many people cannot even get that 2 megabits per second. If somebody is upstairs watching YouTube on a tablet, somebody is downloading something on their smartphone and somebody else is watching iPlayer through their smart TV, even 5 megabits per second might not be enough because of contention ratios. Even when the technology has been rolled past their door, many people are not connected, either because they do not know the benefits or simply because there is not enough competition in the market to make it cheap enough for them to afford.
	I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on introducing the debate. I know the problems in his constituency, because when I stayed there for the Hay festival last year, I had absolutely no means of finding the place where I was going because Google maps gave up on me, because there was no connectivity. I think Edmund Burke would have been proud of him. I am not sure Burke had a lot to say about mobile telephony, but he was quite keen on connections. After all, he said:
	“The only liberty…is a liberty connected with order.”
	I want to talk about the Government’s record. Hon. Members have snuck around the corner here a little bit. In essence, they know that most of what they have argued this afternoon is a criticism of the Government’s record. They have not put it in such terms, because they know there is a general election coming.

Alan Reid: rose—

Chris Bryant: I will not give way if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because we want to get on to—

Lindsay Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman has only just walked in.

Chris Bryant: To be fair, the hon. Gentleman did speak earlier.

Lindsay Hoyle: Just for clarification, normally you do not walk in and intervene, no matter if you have spoken earlier. The convention is you at least hear a little bit of the new debate.

Chris Bryant: On the Government’s record, I think what everybody has said today is that we have to take the whole country with us. That means 100%, not 93% or 95%. I merely point out to hon. Members that the original target was 2 megabits a second by 2012. That was abandoned by this Government, who moved the target to 2015. Now, the target has been moved to 2016. I suggest that that means we want lots of people to be able to run before some people are even able to walk in the digital economy, and I think that that is a mistake.
	The superfast target of 24 megabits a second has also been changed. It was 90% by 2015. Then, when the Government worked out that that simply was not going to happen, for all the reasons hon. Members have set out today, they moved it to 95% by 2016.

Edward Vaizey: rose—

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman will be speaking in a few moments and we wait with bated breath. If he can bate his breath, I will bate mine.
	When BT appeared before the Select Committee it said that we probably would not get to the 90% target until 2018, so there are problems. The Committee was absolutely right when it reported today that
	“Repeated changes in target dates for rollout of superfast broadband inevitably reduce confidence that coverage will be achieved on time. They also leave those in the hardest-to-reach areas uncertain as to when their businesses will be able fully to engage with digital practices.”
	The Committee, which is made up of all political parties in this House, is absolutely right.
	There are key decisions that I think the Government have taken ill-advisedly. The most important in terms of mobile telephony roll-out—the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) effectively referred to this—is in relation to the electronic communications code. There are landowners in the country who have made it phenomenally difficult to put up a new mast or increase the size of a mast. The provisions in the electronic communications code need to be more like those that exist for electricity and water—the common utilities that we absolutely need—than as a luxury, which was how mobile phone telephony was originally looked on. The Government got the Law Commission to report two years ago on the electronic communications code. Only at the very last minute did they table very poorly drafted amendments to the Infrastructure Bill. They could have been on the Order Paper to be properly considered in the normal way a year ago. If hon. Members really want to tackle the problems of mobile telephony coverage across the country, they have to deal with the electronic communications code. The Government have misplayed this matter completely.
	Incidentally, the hon. Member for Newbury said that we had to listen to the silent majority. I am not quite sure how one listens to silence. Maybe the point is that the silent majority are not connected and so do not have an opportunity to tell us what they think.
	Another failed programme from the Government was the £150 million mobile infrastructure project. One hon. Member gently suggested that it is a bit of a failing if only two masts, serving another 400 homes, have been put up in all that time. That is not a slight failure—it is a massive failure. The Government should be coming to the Dispatch Box to hang their heads in shame.
	Another £150 million has been allocated to the super-connected cities programme, but why just cities? Why did they decide to give out vouchers only for superfast cities? Why not the whole country? I represent an area—

Julian Smith: rose—

Chris Bryant: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. We are going to hear from the Minister—

Edward Vaizey: Give way!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Look, this debate is not going to degenerate now. If the Minister can control himself, he will be on shortly, and if Back Benchers want to intervene, will they please do it in the correct manner?

Julian Smith: rose—

Chris Bryant: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He might recall refusing to give way to me earlier. Had he been a little nicer then, I might have returned the favour.
	The Government allocated £150 million to the super-connected cities programme, but what did they do? They hid their light under a bushel—they did not tell anybody about the programme—and guess what? Nobody applied for the vouchers. The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) complained that we objected to the advertising programme. That is completely wrong. He should read his briefing note from the Whips a little more carefully. We complained there was no advertising, which is why there was no take-up and why, of the £150 million, so far only £20 million has been spent. That is another failure from the Government.
	On the tender process, I accept the point about having local communities drive the agenda rather than a national statist agenda, but I gently suggest that if we set up 44 separate areas, it will be almost inevitable that the only people able to compete with a company such as BT will be those with very deep pockets who could be almost certain of getting several contiguous tenders, and that was never going to happen. In effect, it resulted in a licence to create a monopoly, and where we have a monopoly, we need tough, serious rules to ensure greater competition.
	The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), who lost his voice and was helped out by the Minister, made a sensible point about the lack of competition across the whole area, particularly in the provision between the cabinet and the home. That was exactly the problem with the incident he related about the company called B4RN. The other problem is that we are falling far short on take-up compared with roll-out. A far better economic model would be to drive roll-out by encouraging take-up, because people would understand what we need all these megabits for. People hear us talk about 24 megabits, 30 megabits, 50 megabits, 100 megabits, 1 gigabit, but actually nobody knows what we are talking about.

Richard Benyon: indicated dissent.

Chris Bryant: The vast majority of people have no understanding of what we are talking about, which is why we have very low rates of take-up.
	The Government have taken some very wrong steps. For one, they ruled out wireless at the beginning. It is a delight that there is now a £10 million pilot looking at wireless solutions, but it should have been in existence in 2011-12. It is too late now. It is wrong only to look at fibre to the cabinet, and not fibre to some properties, because the simple truth is that people whose houses are a long way from the cabinet will never be part of superfast broadband under the programme as thus exemplified.
	As I have said, there is next to no competition. If the Government are to spend the best part of £500 million of taxpayers’ money—most of it coming off the licence fee—they need to make a strong argument that it is meeting market failure, and I think that when they advanced phase 2, in particular, of superfast broadband without a proper business plan, they failed to prove it was meeting market failure. There is no evidence that this is meeting market failure, rather than simply helping BT make investments it would have made anyway.
	We should be one nation, not digitally divided or disconnected. We should embrace the words of E. M. Forster in “Howards End”: “Only connect”.

Edward Vaizey: Let me begin by saying how grateful I am that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned E. M. Forster, because my late father campaigned for a blue plaque for E. M. Forster, which can now be seen on the flats in Arlington Park mansions in Chiswick. That is an aside, but I always like to mention my old dad, my late father, who was in the other place. I usually get to mention him during steel debates, but I digress.
	We have had an excellent debate with some 18 contributions, most from the Conservative Benches because only one Labour Back Bencher showed up to make a speech. That gives the lie to the Opposition spokesman’s protestations that Labour is interested in rural communities and interested in getting broadband to them.
	We heard excellent speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who called this important debate, and the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). We heard my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) talking about his area’s local enterprise partnership. We heard from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who made some important suggestions. We heard the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), who contributed to the DEFRA Committee report, which to a certain extent sits behind today’s debate.
	We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who has pioneered broadband in North Yorkshire, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) who spoke about Vodafone. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) came up with a new acronym—MBORC, which I shall investigate—while my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) quite rightly started by praising the Government.
	We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), whose contribution I always intensely enjoy. We then heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—it is the first time I have heard the latter speak, and what an excellent contribution it was.
	We then heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and, of course, from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) who I always remember saying—although not in this debate—that the only way he can get a signal is by standing on his kitchen cabinet.
	In the time available I cannot answer all the questions put to me, but I hope that in the course of my response
	some of the issues will be covered. If they are not, I will write to each and every hon. Member who has made a contribution to this debate.
	Let me begin with the contribution of the hon. Member for Rhondda. We heard 10 or 15 minutes from him, but just as we searched the Benches behind him for any speakers, we searched for a policy in his speech—but policy could we find there none. Is it Labour’s intention, for example, to designate internet provision as a utility? Is it Labour’s intention to bring broadband to business parks? Is it Labour’s intention simply to provide broadband only where people say they want it, so that for the first two or three years of a Labour Government we would see a marketing campaign before any broadband was rolled out?
	What are the Opposition’s positions on our policies? The hon. Gentleman lambasted us for not proceeding with the changes to the electronic communications code in the Infrastructure Bill, yet while it was still in the Bill, he was writing to the Secretary of State saying that Labour could not support it. The Opposition Front-Bench team has complained about the superfast broadband advertising campaign, yet now the hon. Gentleman claims that he wished we had advertised more.
	I am afraid that hon. Gentleman got his facts wrong when he said that we had moved the target. We had a target to get superfast broadband to 90% of the country by the end of 2015, and we have every chance of meeting that target. [Interruption.] I repeat that we have every chance of meeting that target. Then we set a new target of 95%—namely, getting to a further 5% of the country by 2016-17. That is not moving the target. The hon. Gentleman also said that we had ruled out wireless technology at the beginning; our approach has always been to be technology-neutral.
	This broadband roll-out campaign is an unequivocal success. We shall very shortly announce that we have passed the 2 millionth premise as a result of the roll-out campaign. That means 2 million households—millions of people—now getting superfast broadband where the market would not deliver. Labour’s alternative policy was give those people 2 megabits and then forget about it. Incidentally, Labour had no way of paying for it, as it had no policy to show how it would pay for this provision of 2 megabits. In fact, 97% of the country already benefits from coverage of 2 megabits, but we know—and all my hon. Friends know from their constituents—that that is no longer deemed to be enough. Most people now expect 7 or 8 megabits.
	Some of my hon. Friends talked about future-proofing. In 2010, we thought that aiming for 24-megabit superfast broadband would be the right policy, but technology changes all the time. Members will have noted BT’s announcement last Friday that it expects to be able to achieve speeds of up to 500 megabits over a copper line, thanks to new technology that it is trying out.
	In the past, we have been criticised by the National Audit Office for some aspects of our campaign. I have been robust in defending our programme against the NAO’s critique, and I am pleased to say that last week it praised the roll-out of superfast broadband. It made clear that we were close to meeting our targets, and were providing value for money. For that I thank the men and women who work for BT, including the engineers who work tirelessly to produce superfast broadband. Over the Christmas period, I visited some of them in
	Steventon, which is in my constituency. More often than not, they exceed their targets and their reach. I also thank Chris Townsend and all my officials who run Broadband Delivery UK, as well as Bill Murphy, who had overall responsibility for the BT programme.
	I think that this is a programme of which we can be very proud. It is being delivered by a great British company, BT, and I was not going to come to the House and run that company down. Let us look at the facts. Superfast broadband is now available to nearly 80% of premises, whereas fewer than 50% had it when we came to office. The United Kingdom has a higher superfast coverage than any of the other EU5 countries. Our average broadband speed has quadrupled over the last four years. We have the highest take-up of superfast broadband in the EU5 and the lowest priced broadband in the EU5 and the United States, and we have the largest number of broadband users in the EU5.
	I understand the frustrations expressed by my hon. Friends, because those statistics point to the fact that we live in a digitally savvy nation, and British consumers want to use the internet. For example, they spend the highest amount per capita on e-commerce shopping. They are rightly demanding the provision of higher speeds and better service as soon as possible, but we are moving as fast as we can, and, as I have said, we are exceeding our targets and are well on track. As for value for money, the independent assessment review conducted for BDUK showed that, in the case of a range of cabinets, BT’s costs were 90% lower than those of a normally efficient operator, while the NAO reported that the average costs of a broad range of projects were currently proving to be about 25% lower than the estimated costs of bids for those projects.
	So what are the issues? I have dealt with the issue of whether we have moved the target, so let me now deal with the issue of competition. Time and again, people ask me why there is not more competition, but what sort of competition do they want? If we had organised a national bid—if we had asked a company to tender to provide broadband on a national basis rather than for 44 areas—what would have happened if BT had won? We would have had a national provider. Do people think that we should have done it according to regions? Who is to say that BT would not have won those contracts? The 44 areas were small, and were open to smaller providers should they have wished to bid. The fact is that BT won the contracts because it provided value for money. That has shown us how tough it is to build the necessary infrastructure, for this is an engineering project that requires infrastructure build-up.
	I will give the Labour party some credit: it did provide an element of competition. It had a digital region in south Yorkshire which went to a provider other than BT, and that went bust. We have had to pick up the pieces, and have had to write off £50 million worth of taxpayers’ money. That is the kind of competition that Labour provided. Nearly 95% of Cornwall, where BT won the contract under the last Government, now has superfast broadband speeds. It is one of the best-connected regions in Europe, and Cornish companies are saying that they have better broadband than when they go to Silicon Valley.
	The other issue is customer service. That involves maps, which pose another dilemma. On the one hand my hon. Friends say, “We want maps to show exactly
	where people are going,” but then the maps are published and BT or the local authority get on the ground and they say, “Actually, this is not as viable as we thought and we’re going to move somewhere else.” That leads to disappointment. So there is a balance to be struck, but as far as I am aware now almost all regions are providing maps of up to seven-digit postcodes.
	Contrary to impressions, I am not the spokesman for Openreach and I share, as a constituency MP, the frustrations that arise with customer service. I cannot inform the House what proportion of bad customer service and good customer service there is, but we all know that constituents who get good service from Openreach are not going to e-mail us while those who get terrible service will, quite rightly, e-mail us and expect us to sort that out. I hold my hand up and say that I have had my fair share of people complaining about Openreach customer service.
	I also share the frustration about new housing developments, and as a result we have got the telecoms providers around the table with the major housing developers and we have put in place a system whereby new housing developments are flagged up to telecoms providers.
	Finally, the biggest point Members mentioned is of course the last 5%. Again, I absolutely understand the frustration of my hon. Friends, and all I would say is, “Meet me halfway.” We have never as a Government pretended we were doing anything other than what we were doing. We said, “We have the money to get to 90% and we hope to do that by the end of 2015.” The Chancellor saw how well the programme was going so he gave us more money. We then had the money to go to 95% and we will get there by the end of 2017. Then, to give great credit to the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), we said, “We want to get to the last 5%, but the back-of-the-envelope cost is huge—literally in the billions of pounds—so let’s do some research before we go back to the Treasury to say what it is likely to cost.” That is why we set up the £10 million pilot projects: we wanted to get on the ground and see what new technologies could deliver superfast broadband speeds to that last 5%. We do not want to leave the last 5% behind; by definition they are the most difficult and most expensive to reach, but we will get there.
	Mobile is another huge issue. We have the fastest roll-out of 4G coverage in the world and the fastest take-up, and I hope my hon. Friends will recognise the superb legally binding agreement to extend that, which the Secretary of State negotiated with the mobile operators. By the end of 2015 we will have reached 98% of premises with 4G from the main operators, but this groundbreaking deal will see the geographic coverage over the two years after that—2016 and 2017—spread to 90% of the country, and it is not going to cost the taxpayer a penny. We have already pioneered it with the mobile infrastructure projects because we have prepared—[Interruption.]The hon. Member for Rhondda is misunderstanding annual licence fees. We have pioneered that with our mobile infrastructure projects because, again, we recognised that rural communities want mobile coverage, and we now have 100 sites ready to go.
	It has been difficult, however, and my hon. Friends mentioned the difficulties we face with landlords, who see this as an excuse. In fact I was being told only today
	about a mast in the highlands that is damaged but which the company cannot get repaired because the landlords used its damage as an excuse to try to negotiate a higher rent. These are the kinds of issues mobile providers face up and down the country.
	Finally, I commend the digital infrastructure document that we published today. We have been working in the last year to look at all the infrastructure networks the Government have a stake in, including the Network Rail signalling network, the emergency services network and JANET—the joint academic network for universities. We want to bring them together, to get that synergy that we have long called for.
	I rest my case there, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Jesse Norman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I was in danger of being filibustered by my ministerial colleague. It is very good to know he shares our concerns about BT Openreach. That only raises the question of to whom he writes to express that anger.
	We have had an excellent debate featuring many very powerful contributions, and it absolutely validates the decision of the Backbench Business Committee to give us this time. Many issues have been raised—economic, social and cultural, and affecting businesses, emergency services, utilities, health care, farmers, families young and old, and those learning, playing and working, all of whom depend on good mobile and broadband connectivity, and doubly so in rural areas.
	We have heard about many serious concerns: not spots; the mobile infrastructure project; and Openreach. The point has been made again and again that broadband is not a luxury. I welcome the Government’s commitment; let them see it being pursued in future months and years.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered rural phone and broadband connectivity.

PETITIONS

Bank branches in Sedbergh

Tim Farron: I present a petition of more than 1,000 residents of Sedbergh in my constituency, which was collected by local volunteers led by Councillor Evelyn Westwood, against the plans of both NatWest and Barclays to close their branches in the town.
	The Petitioners declare that,
	the closure of both the Barclays and NatWest branches in Sedbergh would leave the town without any bank branch, causing an inconvenience for small businesses, vulnerable residents and the community of Sedbergh as a whole. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the Chief Executives of both Barclays and NatWest to retain their branches in Sedbergh.
	And your Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001424]

CCTV IN SLAUGHTERHOUSES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

Henry Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity this evening to raise the issue of the need for CCTV to be installed and monitored in slaughterhouses, in an effort to better aid animal welfare.
	I personally have been vegetarian for more than a quarter of a century, because I am concerned about animal welfare issues in the production of meat, and also for food and environmental sustainability reasons, but I recognise that the majority of people eat meat. However, I would contend that the majority of those people who eat meat want to know that their food is sourced to the highest standards when it comes to animal welfare.
	Trainee slaughterers are tested to ensure that they know the laws relating to animal welfare before they are licensed, and yet when secret cameras have been installed in slaughterhouses, many of them have been caught flouting welfare laws, often in shocking and sickening ways. All too often, this cruelty is casually meted out to every animal that passes through their hands.
	The Animal Aid charity has carried out covert investigations going back as far as 2009. Since then, the group has secreted cameras inside 10 randomly selected UK slaughterhouses and found serious animal welfare breaches in nine of them. The latest evidence from a non-stun Yorkshire slaughterhouse was released to the media just this morning. It showed that the layout of the slaughterhouse was deficient and, in the words of the group,
	“was guaranteed to cause unnecessary suffering to animals”.
	One wonders how that slaughterhouse was ever approved in the first place. The video from inside the abattoir shows casual, routine violence, with sheep being picked up by the ears, legs and fleeces and thrown on to the conveyor, or hurled head first into solid structures. It shows that the “surgically sharp knife” was often so blunt that the slaughterer had to hack over and over again at the throats of still-conscious animals. It also shows workers tormenting animals: waving knives in their faces; shouting at them; and in one case painting spectacles on the face of a sheep, so that they could laugh at the animal as she bled to death.

Jim Shannon: I think every one of us was shocked when we saw the CCTV video and the pictures in the papers. I understand that in every abattoir there is an official veterinary officer who is available to monitor what happens inside the abattoir. They have to be of a certain qualified standard, but I understand that some of them are not. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps the way forward with this issue is to ensure that those official veterinary officers have the qualifications to observe and monitor the abattoirs, to ensure that these practices do not happen.

Henry Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The fact is that the vets who are on site in slaughterhouses are not everywhere at once, and too many incidents have been missed, as I will discuss.
	Proper training is essential, but having an all-seeing eye and independent monitoring would ensure the maximum quality of animal welfare conditions in our slaughterhouses.
	The recording to which I was referring shows appalling violence. The Food Standards Agency has so far suspended the licences of three workers, and I understand it is also building cases for prosecutions. Terrible as those actions are, that slaughterhouse is not, unfortunately, an anomaly.

Lady Hermon: I speak in a dual capacity, as a farmer’s daughter and as the Member for North Down. I strongly support the hon. Gentleman’s call to make CCTV cameras compulsory in all slaughterhouses, and I hope that that would be extended to Northern Ireland. Can he enlighten the House as to the estimated cost of the installation of such cameras?

Henry Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. My brother is a farmer, and many farmers I have spoken to are deeply concerned that the welfare that they care about when the animals are on their farm is discarded in the final moments in the slaughterhouses—I received an e-mail about that just earlier today. I will come on to address the cost to slaughterhouses, but it would range from a few hundred pounds to a few thousand pounds. Given the scale of the industry, only a small amount would be needed to install CCTV across all slaughterhouses in the UK. I deliberately say the UK, because it is important that Northern Ireland, as well as Great Britain, is included.
	Earlier recordings revealed animals being kicked, slapped, stamped on, picked up by fleeces and ears, and thrown into stunning pens. They recorded animals being improperly stunned and coming round again, or suffering painful electrocution instead of being stunned. Cameras have also captured animals being deliberately and illegally beaten and punched, and burned with cigarettes. Workers have been caught hitting pigs in the head with shackle hooks, and using the stunning tongs deliberately to cause pain by sending electric shocks through animals’ ears, noses, tails, legs and abdomens, and even, in one case, through an open mouth.
	The key point I wish to convey tonight is that not one of the illegal acts filmed was detected by the Government-appointed on-site vets or the slaughterhouse operators, who have ultimate responsibility for animal welfare. The current regulatory system fails animals badly, and I believe it is time to rectify that. Workers do know the law and they know how to abide by it, yet investigations show that it is routinely flouted when they think no one is watching—in which case, someone needs to be watching. Independently monitored CCTV could help reduce the number of vicious attacks in the first instance by deterring them. Who would stub a cigarette out on the face of an animal if they knew the illegal act was being recorded?
	Cameras could help prevent routine suffering by detecting institutionalised poor practice, such as the illegal stunning and slaughter methods used in at least four of the slaughterhouses videoed by Animal Aid. Any vet who saw these methods would have been able to step in and advise retraining for the staff involved. And, of course, those who do cause deliberate unnecessary suffering to animals are much more likely to be caught. The recordings, when properly monitored, provide evidence that will
	allow food business operators and the Food Standards Agency to take decisive action. Since Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals welfare standards introduced the requirement for installation of CCTV in abattoirs from 2011, all Freedom Food scheme-approved slaughterhouses have had to install effective CCTV systems and store recordings, and make them available to Freedom Food and RSPCA field staff.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman is being gracious in allowing my interventions. Perhaps he is coming on to this, but will someone be paid to monitor and observe the CCTV? Will there not be a cost factor in that, too?

Henry Smith: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The importance of CCTV is that what is recorded is stored for a period of time and then made available to independent inspectors. I know of a number of groups that would be willing to provide that service at no cost to the taxpayer because of their concern for animal welfare.
	Let me return now to the RSPCA and the Freedom Food scheme. The two organisations have direct practical experience of seeing and assessing the issues associated with the operation of CCTV systems in a range of slaughterhouses. Based on first-hand experience, the use of CCTV in abattoirs is likely to bring many benefits to animals, inspectors and food business operators. Many of those benefits have already been realised in abattoirs that have installed such monitoring.
	The presence of an effective CCTV system in abattoirs is also likely to improve confidence among consumers, enforcers, the food industry and the farming industry that poor practice is being avoided—or at least is more likely to be identified and properly dealt with.
	One RSPCA farm livestock officer who monitors Freedom Food approved abattoirs, and who has many years of experience of viewing practices and assessing compliance with welfare provisions in slaughterhouses both before and after CCTV, said:
	“In my opinion it has improved welfare considerably.”
	The slaughter industry has not made a good name for itself. In recent years, the media have reported on: the deliberate adulteration of meat products with horsemeat; the scandalously high levels of Campylobacter in chicken; the theft of firearms from slaughterhouses; the use of a captive bolt gun to commit a murder; and a number of abattoir workers being killed or seriously harmed at work, sometimes through misuse of equipment, poor training or irresponsible behaviour. Add to that the repeated revelations of cruelty to animals and it is clear that there needs to be better monitoring.
	The supermarkets have already taken decisive action. All the major chains—Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s, the Co-op, Morrisons, Marks and Spencer, Lidl, Aldi, Waitrose and Iceland, as well as wholesaler Booker—now insist that their slaughterhouse suppliers have CCTV installed. This so-called “voluntary” scheme has led to a significant increase in the number of slaughterhouses installing CCTV. The latest Food Standards Agency figures suggest that 19% of red meat slaughterhouses have CCTV, which accounts for around 48% of red meat volume, and 29% of white meat slaughterhouses, which accounts for 59% of poultry meat volume.
	Although that is a positive step, a voluntary scheme has its obvious limitations. Not everyone will install cameras and, as was noted by an FSA board member, it is likely that those who resist installing CCTV are most in need of additional regulation and scrutiny.
	There seem to be just three arguments put forward against implementing this much-needed legislation. The first is that CCTV cameras do not work because they were already in one of the slaughterhouses filmed by Animal Aid. My reply is that of course poorly sited cameras with no one monitoring the footage will not work. The answer is ensuring that cameras are in the right place, that recordings are kept for a significant period, and that an independent body, which is focused on the protection of animals, gets to select random or appropriate sections. There is no argument that anyone should view the recordings in their entirety. Clearly, that would be an impractical, onerous task.
	The second argument is that veterinary surveys show the same level of compliance in slaughterhouses that have cameras as those that do not. However, we know from investigations that vets do not see the commonplace abuse that takes place in slaughterhouses, so how can they report with any degree of accuracy on levels of compliance? The answer is simply that they cannot.
	That exact problem was highlighted again recently when the official number of recorded mis-stuns in slaughterhouses was made public. Vets in slaughterhouses record the cases in which the animals are not stunned properly and at the end of the year those figures are counted up. In 2009, those veterinary figures stated that there were just five mis-stuns of pigs across the whole country for the entire year, but in 2009 Animal Aid placed hidden cameras inside three slaughterhouses, one of which mis-stunned more than 99% of the pigs while another mis-stunned more than 10%. In 2010, the veterinary figures once again suggested that there were just five mis-stuns of pigs across the whole country for the entire year, whereas secret recordings measured 762 mis-stunned pigs in a single slaughterhouse over just three days. It is clear that vets do not see what is happening, which is why we need independently monitored CCTV.
	Finally, we come to the cost. The cost of CCTV installation is not prohibitive—it is just a few hundred pounds for the smaller slaughterhouses and £2,000 to £3,000 for the larger ones. Supermarkets report no resistance to their request that slaughterhouse suppliers install cameras. Although those one-off costs are low, there are various funding options that could be explored. They include individual slaughterhouses funding their own cameras, the industry funding them and the Government making available loans or grants. Although money at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is understandably limited, between 2011 and 2014 DEFRA gave more than £900,000 in funding to slaughterhouses through the rural development programme for England. That sum would sufficiently pay for CCTV installation in every slaughterhouse in England that does not have it. In any case, there could be phase-in times and derogations for the smallest slaughterhouses to help facilitate the change.
	As for the cost of independent monitoring of the recording, there are options to be explored but we should remember that the taxpayer is already paying in
	the region of £30 million a year to regulate slaughterhouses, and that in terms of animal protection at least that money is clearly not working. It is much better to re-evaluate the system and use those millions to ensure that animal welfare laws are upheld.
	In conclusion, CCTV is a practical, sensible and proportionate response to a serious, widespread problem. It will not stop the suffering inside slaughterhouses, but it will deter gross acts of violence that were all too commonly recorded, help vets advise and retrain and help the FSA clamp down on lawbreaking by providing evidence for prosecutions, should they be necessary.
	As its obvious benefits are becoming more widely known, support for making CCTV in slaughterhouses mandatory is growing. More than 170 right hon. and hon. Members have signalled their support for it, whereas a YouGov poll of British adults last year showed that 76% support mandatory CCTV for slaughterhouses with independent monitoring. I note that a petition to No. 10 in support of the measure has now attracted more than 80,000 signatures. I therefore believe that this will be an issue that the House will debate again in the very near future.

George Eustice: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on securing this timely debate, given that we have had the recent publication of the Food Standards Agency’s latest survey on animal welfare in slaughterhouses. I am also aware of Animal Aid’s campaign for compulsory CCTV and the revelations in the media today about apparent incidents at the Bowood abattoir in Yorkshire. In addition, I can tell the House that today we have published a report on CCTV in slaughterhouses by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, which is an expert advisory committee to the Government. I have placed a copy of the report in the Library. The committee has been considering the issue for much of the past year and I am grateful to it for its input.
	Animal welfare is a matter on which DEFRA receives a huge amount of correspondence. It really matters to the British public and to the Government. From my personal perspective, although I am not a vegetarian, I was a farmer for nine years and it matters to me. When one rears cattle—when one looks after cattle, pigs and other animals—one wants to know that when they are sent off to market and to that end they will be spared any unnecessary stress or suffering, and that they will be treated with respect. That matters to all good farmers, to the public and to good slaughtermen, too. I will return to the issue of CCTV and the findings of the FAWC report, but first I will deal with the Bowood incident, reported in the media today following the release of secret footage by Animal Aid.
	I was first made aware of the Animal Aid video on 6 January and I asked immediately to see some of the footage that Animal Aid had made available to the FSA. Like many others who will have seen the footage, I found the films distressing and gave my full support to the immediate enforcement action that was being taken.
	The FSA acted swiftly to suspend the licences of the four slaughtermen involved. It also launched an immediate investigation into the incidents, and that investigation is still ongoing. One of the suspended members of staff
	was subsequently sacked by Bowood, while the remaining three are banned from handling live animals until the investigations have concluded. In addition, I can confirm that the FSA has required the immediate introduction to Bowood of an additional inspector to monitor operations there, and the cost of that additional inspector will be chargeable to the business. The additional officer will have full viewing access to all areas of the plant. Also, I recently asked our deputy chief veterinary officer to commence a piece of work with the FSA to review the way existing regulations are implemented and enforced, with a view to ensuring consistent understanding of what guidelines should be followed to ensure that slaughterhouses abide by the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
	The report by the FAWC concludes that there are many benefits to CCTV in slaughterhouses, but also sounds a note of caution, stating that CCTV is no panacea, and while it can be a useful tool to complement existing enforcement and management, it cannot replace other management procedures and inspection regimes. It is tempting to conclude that the footage released by Animal Aid proves a point: that perhaps things like this would not happen if CCTV were in place. However, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, the reality is that the Bowood abattoir where Animal Aid secretly recorded its footage already has CCTV. The presence of CCTV did not prevent those apparent incidents, and the Bowood case is not the first example of apparent welfare breaches, including deliberate abuses, found in slaughterhouses where CCTV is present. My conclusion is that CCTV can only ever be part of the answer to improving animal welfare and preventing abuses. It needs to be backed up with other monitoring methods.

Roger Williams: I declare an interest as a livestock farmer, as well as my utter disgust on seeing the film of the Yorkshire slaughterhouse. I am a little concerned that many small slaughterhouses are already closing down, mainly because of the costs of regulation and supervision. Does the Minister agree that the introduction of CCTV should be proportionate, so that small slaughterhouses that have a good record on hygiene and animal welfare can be exempted, as the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) suggested?

George Eustice: I was going to discuss some of the options later. Earlier, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked about costs. The FAWC has said that the costs can range from £3,000 to £10,000; that is the committee’s view, but other estimates are higher, at £25,000. Clearly, it depends on the size of the abattoir and the number of areas covered by CCTV, but we do not think the cost of the equipment is prohibitive. It is relatively modest but it is none the less a real cost and we must be careful not to harm smaller abattoirs, particularly those that have good track records on animal welfare.
	As I said, the FAWC report states that there are benefits to CCTV. The committee concludes that it has a useful role in recording incidents, helping enforcers by enabling them to look at the footage to check what actually happened. It can also be used for evidence where welfare abuses are suspected. But the benefits of CCTV go wider than its role as a possible deterrent. For instance, it could allow observation of activities in small
	or confined spaces where it would otherwise be difficult for the official veterinarian to observe. The report also concludes that CCTV can provide more accurate ante-mortem inspection in the lairage areas. For example, it is apparent that sheep may mask lameness when a stockman or a vet is present but behave normally under remote observation.
	CCTV can also be a valuable training tool for operatives to encourage sensitive and sympathetic behaviour towards animals and to spot any bad practices which could result in incidents or near misses. The report concludes that it is necessary to get the balance right between CCTV being present as a deterrent and a “Big Brother is watching you” device, and using it in a positive way to help train operatives.
	I want to say a little about the current situation and the uptake of CCTV. The FSA’s survey of compliance with animal welfare regulations in slaughterhouses in 2013, which was published last week, looked at the extent to which CCTV was already present on a voluntary basis in both red meat and white meat slaughterhouses. It is encouraging to note that the 2013 survey recorded that there has been an increase since 2011 in the use of CCTV, and that 43% of red meat and 55% of white meat slaughterhouses now have CCTV installed. By comparison, in 2010 just 7% had CCTV in the stunning and slaughter area and 8% had CCTV in other areas, so progress has been made.
	Of course, these figures illustrate only part of the picture, as even those slaughterhouses that have CCTV installed do not necessarily have it in all areas. For example, red meat slaughterhouses tend to have slightly more CCTV in the lairage and unloading areas than in the stunning or bleeding areas. None the less, the trend towards increased installation and use of CCTV in slaughterhouses is welcome. Once we take into account the fact that the larger abattoirs tend to have CCTV and look at the throughput of those slaughterhouses, the results are even more positive. The proportion of animals slaughtered in premises using CCTV is approximately 83% of sheep, 90% of cattle, 92% of pigs and 98% of poultry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley pointed out, the fact that 10 of the major supermarkets demand CCTV in slaughterhouses that supply them has, no doubt, been a factor, but I hope hon. Members agree that it is encouraging that much of the meat and poultry industry has reacted positively for calls over recent years for CCTV introduction.
	On enforcement, business operators are primarily responsible for the animals in their care at slaughterhouses, whereas the FSA’s official veterinarians are responsible for monitoring the welfare of animals at slaughterhouses. The report by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee points out that since the responsibility ultimately rests with business operators, they have an interest in ensuring that they do their job effectively. CCTV can assist them in doing that. I agree with my hon. Friend on some of the advantages of CCTV and that it can be a powerful tool. I welcome the increased uptake in CCTV, although I recognise its limitations.
	I shall touch briefly on the point about mis-stunning, which my hon. Friend raised. On the statistics concerning mis-stuns, the Government accepted last year that these were unlikely to cover 100% of incidents. Official veterinarians do not monitor all killing operations, and for poultry OVs can only ever record the number of
	incidents, rather than the number of animals affected. It is important to clarify what we understand by a mis-stun. Previously, only major and critical breaches where the mis-stun caused pain, suffering or distress were recorded, along with the corrective action taken.
	Following questions asked in the House, I asked the FSA to review the way it monitors and reports mis-stuns, and it has now issued new instructions to official veterinarians which requires them to record minor breaches, such as where there may be a superficial concussion owing to an inaccurate position and a second stun is applied immediately afterwards. I hope that in future my hon. Friend’s concerns about the accuracy of data will be addressed.
	In conclusion, the key question that the debate raises is whether making it mandatory for slaughterhouses to have CCTV installed will improve animal welfare. The last time the Government looked at the issue, which was
	in 2012, we concluded that mandatory CCTV was not the right way to go. However, I have always been clear that we keep the issue under review and that I have an open mind. I have just received the report from the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, which examines the arguments and evidence for the compulsory installation of CCTV in slaughterhouses. I want to consider its findings fully before reaching a final conclusion. As I have said, I will place a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses so that hon. Members can do the same. We have also uploaded the report to the gov.uk website.
	We have had an interesting debate. My hon. Friend, who has pursued the issue tirelessly since being elected, raised some important points. I hope that I have been able to address some of his concerns today.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.